Vigolo v Bostin

The appeal concerned an application by the appellant, a son of the deceased, for provision out of his father's estate under the *Inheritance (Family and Dependants Provision) Act 1972* (WA). The deceased's will made no provision for the appellant, who was one of five adult children. The appellant had worked in the family farming business for many years, from the age of 16, and alleged that his father had promised him the family farm as his inheritance in return for his contributions and low wages. In 1993, the relationship between the appellant and his father deteriorated, leading to a deed of settlement where the appellant and his wife purchased the family farm. The High Court of Australia heard the appeal.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the appellant, who was of substantial means and had received significant financial benefit through the purchase of the family farm, had been left without adequate provision for his maintenance, education, or advancement in life. The Court also considered the effect of the deed of settlement on the appellant's claim and whether the Act permitted or contemplated orders based solely on the fulfilment of a moral obligation, and if so, what circumstances would give rise to such an obligation.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decisions of the lower courts. The Court reasoned that the appellant had received substantial consideration for his contributions to the family business, particularly through the acquisition of the Old Coach Road farm under the deed of settlement, which was significantly subsidised by a gift from his mother. While acknowledging the appellant's evidence of his father's promises and his substantial contributions, the Court found that these factors, when viewed in light of the financial arrangements made in the deed of settlement, did not establish a case for further provision from the estate. The Court indicated that while a moral duty can be a relevant consideration, it must be assessed in the context of the deceased's overall testamentary intentions and the applicant's circumstances, including any benefits already received.

The High Court ordered that the appeal be dismissed and that the appellant pay the costs of the respondents. The costs of the first and second respondents were to be taxed on a trustee basis, and any amount exceeding the party and party costs borne by the appellant was to be paid out of the estate.