The Supreme Court has recently dismissed a claim brought by a surviving wife seeking provision from her deceased husband’s estate, on the basis that the wife could not demonstrate financial need. The Court found that her claim for a share of her husband’s estate had no real prospect of success and should not proceed to trial.
The deceased husband left a will made in 2006 leaving his entire estate to his adult daughter from a prior relationship. He married the wife in 2006. The will remained in place at the time of his death and was not challenged.
Throughout the marriage, the husband experienced significant health issues. During that time, the wife, a medical practitioner, provided significant care and reduced her working hours.
After his death, she commenced proceedings seeking a share of the estate, relying heavily on the length of the marriage, her significant caregiving role and the impact that had on her earning capacity.
Financial need remains the threshold issue
The Court accepted that the deceased husband owed obligations to his wife and that the caregiving history formed part of the factual background. That was not enough.
On the wife’s own evidence, she was financially secure. She owned an unencumbered principal residence, held multiple investment properties, had superannuation interests and rental income, and retained earning capacity. The Court found that she was able to provide for her own proper maintenance and support.
The Court also reiterated the orthodox position that, a will maker’s obligation to a surviving spouse is commonly satisfied by ensuring secure accommodation, a reasonable income stream and a fund to meet unforeseen contingencies. On the evidence before the Court, the wife already had all three from her own assets and income. She had no need for further provision.
Because financial need is a threshold requirement under the legislation, the Court concluded that the jurisdiction to make a family provision order was not enlivened. The claim therefore had no real prospect of success and was dismissed summarily.
In practical terms, this meant the Court brought the case to an end at an early stage, without a full trial, because the evidence did not justify allowing it to proceed.
The decision confirms that family provision claims are not determined by perceived unfairness, relationship history or past sacrifice. Unless a claimant can demonstrate a genuine level financial vulnerability, the Court may have no power to intervene.
It is unclear whether the wife will be ordered to pay legal costs.
Importance for executors
For executors, early and careful scrutiny of a claimant’s financial position is critical.
Family provision claims are often treated as inevitable and allowed to progress on the assumption that settlement will eventually be required. This case shows that approach is not always justified. Where a claimant is already financially secure, summary judgment may be an available procedural mechanism.
Executors are required to uphold the will, not redistribute estate assets based on sympathy or perceived fairness. Any settlement must be defensible as a rational compromise of legal risk, particularly where financial need is not established.
That remains the case even where the claimant is a spouse and there is an otherwise compelling personal history. The Court was prepared to bring the matter to an end at an early stage to avoid unnecessary cost and delay to the estate.
Executors who fail to properly test financial need risk allowing weak claims to erode estate assets and prolong administration without good reason.
Importance for claimants
For potential claimants, the decision is a warning against running family provision claims on the basis of fairness or past sacrifice alone.
Courts will scrutinise financial position closely. Ownership of property, access to superannuation, investment income and earning capacity will be central. Where a claimant is financially secure, even a long marriage and substantial caregiving history may not be enough to get the claim past the threshold stage.
Claimants who cannot demonstrate genuine financial vulnerability risk early dismissal and adverse costs exposure. That is the case, even where they may have a strong moral claim.
Estate planning context
The will in this case pre-dated much of the marriage and the later period of illness and caregiving. It was not clear whether the deceased husband intended to exclude his wife from benefiting under his estate, or whether the outcome resulted from a failure to update his will as circumstances changed.
That distinction did not affect the legal outcome. The Court proceeded on the basis of the will as it stood at death and did not treat outdated planning as a reason to intervene.
For will makers, the practical point is straightforward. Major life events — including marriage, second marriages, changes in family structure and periods of illness — should prompt a review of estate planning arrangements.
Failing to do so creates uncertainty, increases the likelihood of disputes, and leaves asset distribution to be determined by litigation rather than clear instructions.
Practical significance
Financial need remains the gateway issue. Relationship history and arguments based on past sacrifice do not replace that requirement.
Summary judgment remains an effective tool where the evidence shows the claimant is financially independent.
For executors and beneficiaries, the case supports a disciplined approach to claim assessment. Personal narratives should not obscure the threshold question of financial need. Where that requirement is not met, early procedural action may be preferable to allowing weak claims to erode estate value.
Whether you are an executor or a prospective claimant please contact Pointon Partners for advice tailored to your circumstances.
Authors
Michael Bishop
Michael.Bishop@pointonpartners.com.au
Carl Millington
carl.millington@pointonpartners.com.au
Pointon Partners, Melbourne, Australia
https://pointonpartners.com.au/
