Boyd v Roberts

The case of Boyd v Roberts involved a claim by the plaintiff, an adult child, for family provision against the estate of her deceased father. The deceased had been married to the plaintiff's mother, who passed away in 2006. He remarried the defendant, who had four children from a previous marriage, in 2008. The plaintiff had initially lived with her father and stepmother but later separated due to family conflicts. Despite this, the deceased and the defendant accumulated significant assets and were preparing for retirement when the deceased died in 2023. The deceased had a joint bank account with the defendant, and they jointly managed a self-managed superannuation fund with real property assets. The plaintiff, who is married with one child and does not own any real estate, sought to purchase a property in the area where she currently resides, on Sydney's northern beaches. The central issue was whether a family provision order should be made against the deceased's estate in the plaintiff's favour, and if the property in the bank account and the superannuation fund, potentially designated as notional estate, could be subject to such an order.

The court had to determine the adequacy of the estate to meet a family provision claim of substance. It also had to consider whether the property in the bank account and the superannuation fund, potentially classified as notional estate, could be subject to a family provision order. The court examined the contributions and circumstances of the parties, including the deceased's relationship with the plaintiff and the stepmother's contributions. The court acknowledged the stepmother's financial contributions to the estate and the lack of direct contributions from the plaintiff. The court concluded that the estate was inadequate to meet a family provision claim of substance, and that the property in the notional estate could be subject to a family provision order if the claim was of substance.

Given the stepmother's substantial contributions to the estate and the absence of significant contributions from the plaintiff, the court found that a family provision order in the plaintiff's favour was not warranted. The court ruled that the estate was inadequate to meet a family provision claim of substance, and therefore no order for provision should be made against the estate. The court's decision highlighted the importance of contributions and the circumstances of each case in determining family provision claims. The court did not make any order for provision in favour of the plaintiff.