Wilson v Wright; Wilson v Wright

The dispute arose between the deceased, Mr Wright, and his two adult step-children, the plaintiffs, Wilson. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiffs sought family provision from the deceased's estate, claiming that Mr Wright had acted as a parental figure for most of their childhood. However, the relationship became estranged after the deceased was accused of sexually abusing the plaintiffs, an accusation that was ultimately dismissed at trial. The plaintiffs argued that the estrangement should not preclude the court from considering their claim, and that the deceased had a moral obligation to provide for them.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiffs had demonstrated "factors warranting" an application for family provision, and whether the deceased had a moral duty to provide for the plaintiffs despite their estrangement. The court had to consider the nature and duration of the relationship, the circumstances that led to the estrangement, and the impact of the estrangement on the plaintiffs' financial circumstances. The court also needed to determine whether the plaintiffs' estrangement from the deceased should be a decisive factor in denying their claim for family provision.

The court found that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated "factors warranting" an application for family provision. While the plaintiffs' relationship with the deceased was significant, the court determined that the estrangement and the nature of the relationship did not warrant an order for family provision. The court held that the estrangement was a relevant factor, and the plaintiffs' estrangement from the deceased, despite the allegations of abuse being found not guilty, significantly impacted their ability to make a compelling case. The court concluded that the deceased did not have a moral duty to make provision for the plaintiffs given the circumstances.

The court ordered that the plaintiffs' claims for family provision be dismissed. The court found that the estrangement and the lack of demonstrated need were critical factors in denying the plaintiffs' application. The court emphasised that while the relationship between the deceased and the plaintiffs was significant, the estrangement and the circumstances leading to it were decisive in this case. The court did not make any order for family provision to the plaintiffs.