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
[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…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Angius v Angius
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Angius v Angius [2025] NSWCA 113
Case
[2025] NSWCA 113
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The New South Wales Court of Appeal considered a family provision claim brought by a grandchild against the estate of the deceased. The applicant sought provision from the estate, alleging she was a wholly or partly dependent of the deceased and that the deceased had failed to make adequate provision for her proper maintenance, education, and advancement in life. The deceased had provided financial support to the applicant, who was an adult, and had also intended to appoint her as attorney and guardian.
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.