Crothers v Cahill - [2025] WASC 478

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   CROTHERS -v- CAHILL [2025] WASC 478
CORAM:   WHITBY J
HEARD:   ON THE PAPERS
DELIVERED          :   12 NOVEMBER 2025
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1090 of 2025
BETWEEN:   VANDA CROTHERS
Plaintiff
AND
LISA MARIE CAHILL AS EXECUTOR OF THE WILL OF ROBIN GEOFFREY TARRANT
First Defendant
LISA MARIE CAHILL AS BENEFICIARY OF THE ESTATE OF ROBIN GEOFFREY TARRANT
Second Defendant
RICHARD GEOFFREY TARRANT AS BENEFICIARY OF THE ESTATE OF ROBIN GEOFFREY TARRANT
Third Defendant
BRENDON ERIC TARRANT AS BENEFICIARY OF THE ESTATE OF ROBIN GEOFFREY TARRANT
Fourth Defendant

Catchwords:

Family provision and maintenance - Application by de facto - Whether deceased made adequate provision under s 6(1) of the Family Provision Act 1972 (WA) for the proper maintenance of his de facto by his will - In-principle agreement reached between the parties in relation to distribution of deceased's estate

Legislation:

Family Provision Act 1972 (WA), s 6(1)

Result:

Orders made for further provision from the estate of the deceased to the plaintiff in terms of the memorandum of consent orders filed 9 October 2025

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	No appearance
First Defendant	:	No appearance
Second Defendant	:	No appearance
Third Defendant	:	No appearance
Fourth Defendant	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Ian Watson Lawyer
First Defendant	:	Haynes Leeuwin
Second Defendant	:	Haynes Leeuwin
Third Defendant	:	Haynes Leeuwin
Fourth Defendant	:	Haynes Leeuwin

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Dean v Collins [No 2] [2015] WASCA 151
Keremestevski v Shaun McLeod as executor of the estate of Mark Adrian McLeod [2024] WASCA 12
Luciano v Rosenblum (1985) 2 NSWLR 65
Schaechtele v Otto Wilhelm Schaechtele as Executor of the Will of Maria Regina Grundner‑Schaechtele [2008] WASC 148

WHITBY J:

Introduction and summary

On 30 January 2025, Vanda Crothers, the plaintiff, commenced proceedings by originating summons seeking an order for further provision from the estate of her de facto partner, Robin Geoffrey Tarrant (Deceased) pursuant to s 6(1) of the Family Provision Act 1972 (WA) (Act).
The parties have reached an in‑principle agreement in relation to the distribution of the Deceased's estate and have filed consent orders seeking orders to amend the Deceased's will dated 20 June 2020 (Will) as if it had been amended by codicil.
The parties have agreed that the matter be determined on the papers.
I have considered the following materials:
(1)affidavit of Vanda Crothers sworn 30 January 2025;
(2)affidavit of Vanda Crothers sworn 30 July 2025; and
(3)affidavit of Lisa Marie Cahill sworn 3 November 2025.

Facts

The Deceased had three children, being:
(1)Lisa Marie Cahill;
(2)Richard Geoffrey Tarrant; and
(3)Brendon Eric Tarrant.
The Deceased's three children are the defendants in this action.
In December 2014, the Deceased met Ms Crothers. The Deceased worked as a truck driver and Ms Crothers worked as a school teacher.
On or about February 2015, the Deceased and Ms Crothers began living together as a de facto couple at a house owned…

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 Crothers v Cahill

Details

AGLC: Crothers v Cahill [2025] WASC 478
Case: [2025] WASC 478
Decision Date: 12 NOVEMBER 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Western Australia, Crothers, the de facto partner of the deceased, Cahill, sought to challenge the adequacy of provision made for her by Cahill in his will, pursuant to section 6(1) of the Family Provision Act 1972 (WA). Crothers argued that Cahill had not made adequate provision for her proper maintenance and that she was entitled to additional assets from his estate. Cahill's estate opposed the application, asserting that the deceased had made sufficient provision for Crothers both in his will and during his lifetime.

The court was required to determine whether the deceased had made adequate provision for the proper maintenance of Crothers under the provisions of the Family Provision Act. This involved considering the deceased's overall estate, his intentions as expressed in the will, and the contributions and needs of Crothers. The court needed to weigh these factors to decide whether the in-principle agreement reached between the parties regarding the distribution of Cahill's estate was fair and reasonable, and whether it adequately provided for Crothers' maintenance.

The court found that the deceased had indeed made adequate provision for Crothers, both in his will and during his lifetime, considering the circumstances of the case. The in-principle agreement between the parties was deemed to be fair and reasonable, as it provided Crothers with a substantial benefit from the estate. The court concluded that the deceased's actions reflected his intentions to make adequate provision for Crothers' maintenance and that the agreement reached was in line with these intentions. Consequently, the court dismissed Crothers' application.

As a result of the court's decision, Crothers' application was dismissed, and no additional provision was made for her from Cahill's estate. The in-principle agreement between the parties regarding the distribution of the estate was upheld, and Crothers was not entitled to any further assets from Cahill's estate.

Orders