Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Summary available
Medium Neutral Citation: Angius v Angius [2025] NSWCA 113 Hearing dates: 7 April 2025 Decision date: 27 May 2025 Before: Bell CJ at [1]
Mitchelmore JA at [2]
Ball JA at [92]Decision: (1) Appeal dismissed with costs.
Catchwords: SUCCESSION — family provision — claim by grandchild — whether an eligible person — whether wholly or partly dependent —where deceased provided financial support to applicant as an adult
SUCCESSION — family provision — claim by grandchild — whether factors warranting — where applicant provided companionship and assistance to deceased — where deceased provided financial support to applicant as an adult — where deceased intended to appoint applicant as attorney and guardian
SUCCESSION — family provision — quantum of provision — large estate — whether provision unreasonable — where applicant has multiple sclerosis and is unlikely to receive significant financial support from parents
Legislation Cited: Succession Act 2006 (NSW), ss 57, 59, 60.
Cases Cited: Alexander v Jansson [2010] NSWCA 176; 6 ASTLR 432
Andrew v Andrew (2012) 81 NSWLR 656, [2012] NSWCA 308
Ball v Newey (1988) 13 NSWLR 489
Bayssari v Bazouni [2014] NSWSC 910
Bowditch v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2012] NSWSC 275
Chapple v Wilcox (2014) 87 NSWLR 646; [2014] NSWCA 392
Chisak v Presot [2022] NSWCA 100
Curtis v Curtis [2024] NSWCA 136
Frank v Angell [2024] NSWCA 264
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
Permanent Trustee Co Ltd v Fraser (1995) 36 NSWLR 24
Spata v Tumino (2018) 95 NSWLR 706; [2018] NSWCA 17
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Jenny Angius (Appellant)
Natalie Angius (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
M Painter SC with D Yazdani (Appellant)
M Pesman SC (Respondent)
Mills Oakley (Appellant)
Bay Legal (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2024/00320250 Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- Supreme Court of New South Wales
- Jurisdiction:
- Equity
- Citation:
- Date of Decision:
- 13 August 2024
- Before:
- Richmond J
- File Number(s):
- 2024/00320250
HEADNOTE
[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]
On 31 January 2022, Giovanni (John) Angius died. Under his final will, dated 21 April 2021, the appellant, John’s daughter Jenny Angius, is the sole beneficiary of his estate, which had a net value of $29,588,261 at time of hearing. No provision was made under that will for John’s son Robert Angius or Robert’s daughters, including the respondent, Natalie Angius. This will replaced a will John made in 2012, under which Natalie was to receive an indexed legacy of $200,000.
Natalie commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court seeking family provision under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) (the Act). As a grandchild of the deceased, Natalie was required to show that she was wholly or partly dependent on John at any particular time, that there were factors…
Continue reading Angius v Angius
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Angius v Angius [2025] NSWCA 113
- Case
- [2025] NSWCA 113
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court was required to determine whether the applicant was an eligible person to bring a family provision claim, specifically whether she was wholly or partly dependent on the deceased. Furthermore, the Court had to consider whether the factors warranted making provision for the applicant from the estate, and if so, what quantum of provision would be appropriate given the size of the estate and the applicant's circumstances, including her multiple sclerosis and limited financial support from her parents.
The Court reasoned that the applicant had established a sufficient degree of dependency on the deceased to be considered an eligible person. The financial support provided by the deceased, coupled with the applicant's provision of companionship and assistance to the deceased, and the deceased's intention to appoint her as attorney and guardian, demonstrated a relationship that warranted provision. The Court found that the deceased had not made adequate provision for the applicant's proper maintenance and advancement in life.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Appeal dismissed with costs.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.