West v Talia - [2025] VSC 437

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION
TESTATORS FAMILY MAINTENANCE LIST

S ECI 2020 02232
S ECI 2020 02255

IN THE MATTER of Part IV of the Administration and Probate Act 1958

- and –

IN THE MATTER of the Estate of COLIN EDWARD WEST, deceased

BETWEEN:

MICHELLE GLORIA WEST (by her litigation guardian, DEBRA DAVIS) & ANOR (according to the attached Schedule)	Plaintiffs
v
NATALIE TALIA (who is sued in her capacity as administrator of the estate of the deceased)	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Ierodiaconou AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27 and 28 May 2025
DATE OF RULING:	21 July 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	West v Talia
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 437

---

TESTATORS FAMILY MAINTENANCE – Application for family provision orders under Part IV of the Administration and Probate Act1958 (Vic) by adult daughters – Where deceased made no provision for adult daughters in his will – Moral duty owed by deceased to make provision for adult daughters in need and with disabilities – What amount constitutes adequate provision for the proper maintenance and support of the adult daughters – Circumstances where any provision will be insufficient – Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic) ss 90, 90A, 91, 91A.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For Ms M West	Ms E Konstantinou	Davis Lawyers
Ms S West in person
For the Defendant	Mr T Mah	Suzanne Lyttleton Lawyers

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

The will

The deceased’s estate

Evidence – assessment of witnesses

Evidence – audio recordings

Sharon’s submissions

Michelle’s submissions

Administrator’s submissions

What family provision orders should the Court make?

Quantum of family provision orders
Nature and length of the relationship between the claimants and the deceased
Deceased’s obligations and responsibilities to eligible persons or beneficiaries
Size and nature of the deceased’s estate
Financial resources, earning capacity and financial needs of eligible persons and beneficiaries
Disabilities of Michelle, Sharon or beneficiaries
Michelle and Sharon’s ages
Contribution by Michelle and Sharon in building up the deceased’s estate or the deceased’s welfare
Benefits previously given to Michelle, Sharon or beneficiaries
Maintenance of Michelle or Sharon by the deceased
Liability of others to maintain Michelle and Sharon
Character and conduct of Michelle and Sharon, or other persons
Effects of a family provision order on beneficiaries
Other relevant matters

Conclusion

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

Sisters Michelle and Sharon West seek provision from the estate of their late father, Colin West (the ‘deceased’). They have each made family provision claims per pt IV of the Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic) (‘the Act’). Michelle and Sharon are aged 50 and 48 years old, respectively.[1] Their father was 74 years old when he died. He was survived by Michelle, Sharon, three grandchildren and Siobhan Blaney. His will describes Siobhan as his domestic partner. She is about 38 years old. There is enmity between the sisters and Siobhan.
[1]For clarity, and without intending any disrespect, I will refer to the parties and their family members and friends…

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 West v Talia

Details

AGLC: West v Talia [2025] VSC 437
Case: [2025] VSC 437
Decision Date: 21 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of West v Talia involved the application for family provision orders by two adult daughters against the estate of their father. The deceased, prior to his death, made no provision for his daughters in his will, despite their financial need and disabilities. The daughters sought orders under Part IV of the Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic) to ensure they received adequate maintenance and support from the estate. The legal issues before the court were whether the deceased had a moral duty to provide for his daughters and, if so, what amount would constitute adequate provision for their proper maintenance and support.

The court examined the provisions of the Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic) to determine the appropriate course of action. The daughters argued that the deceased's failure to provide for them in his will, coupled with their need and disabilities, justified a substantial family provision order. The court considered the deceased's financial situation, the daughters' individual needs, and the nature of their disabilities. The court found that the deceased did owe a moral duty to his daughters, particularly given their disabilities and need. It was determined that any provision made would be insufficient to fully meet their needs, but the court sought to balance the daughters' needs against the estate's resources.

The court ordered that the estate provide a specific sum to each daughter to cover their living expenses and support their disabilities. This amount was deemed adequate given the circumstances, though the court acknowledged that it might not fully address all their needs. The court recognised the importance of the moral duty owed by the deceased to his daughters and sought to provide a practical solution that balanced their needs against the estate's capacity to pay. The final orders directed the estate to make the specified payments to the daughters within a defined timeframe.

Orders