Australian businessman left his $29.5 million estate to his daughter, excluding his son and granddaughters; one granddaughter later won a $2.55 million court award

An Australian businessman left his $29.59 million estate to his daughter under his final will, making no provision for his son or granddaughters. After his death in January 2022, his granddaughter Natalie Angius applied to the Supreme Court of New South Wales for family provision, arguing that she had been partly dependent on him and had not been adequately provided for. In August 2024, the court awarded Natalie $2.55 million from her grandfather’s estate. His daughter, Jenny Angius, appealed the decision, challenging Natalie’s eligibility, the circumstances warranting her claim and the size of the award. On May 27, 2025, the New South Wales Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, leaving the award in place.The 2012 will and the decision to leave the estate to his daughterJohn Angius’s final will, dated April 21, 2021, named his daughter Jenny as executor and sole beneficiary. His son Robert and Robert’s daughters, including Natalie, were not provided for under that will. An earlier will, signed on September 14, 2012, had made provision for several family members. It included indexed legacies of $200,000 for Natalie and certain other grandchildren. The earlier will was subsequently replaced by the 2021 document, and the court did not enforce its legacy in Natalie’s favour. Her eventual award arose from a separate family-provision claim under New South Wales law.Natalie told the court that John had described the 2021 will as temporary and had spoken about making further provision for his grandchildren. Evidence considered by the court included a meeting on December 20, 2021, when John gave a solicitor instructions concerning an enduring power of attorney and an enduring guardianship. The documents were not signed before his death. The first-instance judge also considered evidence of John’s statements about providing for his grandchildren. Those statements formed part of the broader assessment of his intentions, alongside the terms of his wills and the circumstances of Natalie’s relationship with him.Why Natalie qualified for family provisionNatalie brought her claim under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW). The legislation allows eligible people to seek provision from a deceased person’s estate when the will has not made adequate provision for their proper maintenance, education or advancement in life. A grandchild does not automatically qualify simply because of the family relationship. Under section 57, Natalie had to establish that she met the relevant eligibility requirements, including that she had been wholly or partly dependent on John at some point. She also had to establish the factors warranting her application under section 59. The court considers the matters listed in section 60 when deciding whether to make a provision order and determining its amount.In Le v Angius; Angius v Angius [2024] NSWSC 924, Justice Richmond found that Natalie had been partly dependent on her grandfather during her childhood and adulthood. The court considered their relationship, his financial assistance, her circumstances and the evidence of their contact, particularly in the later years of his life.Natalie was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 2014. The court considered evidence that John continued to provide financial assistance and that their relationship involved regular visits, meals, care and practical support. It also examined her financial position and future needs, including the prospect of ongoing medical and personal-care expenses. The judge concluded that the absence of provision for Natalie in the 2021 will was inadequate in the circumstances. The decision was based on the evidence and the statutory test for family provision, rather than on any claim that the superseded 2012 will remained legally enforceable.How the court calculated the $2.55 million awardNatalie’s proposed provision included $950,000 for a suitably modified apartment, $100,000 for a modified vehicle and an additional sum to provide a financial buffer and income for future medical and care needs. The judge assessed the amount required for that buffer at $1.5 million. Together, the apartment, vehicle and buffer figures totalled $2.55 million, which became the lump-sum family-provision award.The court did not require the estate to meet every expense Natalie had identified. Instead, it assessed what provision was appropriate in light of her circumstances, her likely future needs, the size of the estate, her relationship with John and the other relevant statutory considerations. The award was not a payment of the $200,000 legacy in the earlier will, nor was it calculated simply by applying that earlier provision. It was a new order made under family-provision law after the court considered the evidence.Court of Appeal dismisses Jenny’s challengeJenny appealed the first-instance decision, disputing the findings concerning Natalie’s eligibility, the factors warranting her application and the amount awarded. In Angius v Angius [2025] NSWCA 113, the New South Wales Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The court upheld the primary judge’s conclusion that Natalie was eligible to apply because she had been partly dependent on John as an adult. It also rejected the challenges to the finding that there were factors warranting her application and to the amount of provision ordered.The dismissal left Natalie’s $2.55 million award in place. The outcome demonstrates that, under New South Wales succession law, a grandchild who was not provided for in a deceased person’s final will may still seek family provision if the statutory requirements are met. Eligibility and the amount awarded depend on the evidence and the circumstances of the individual case. The case also illustrates the distinction between a will’s terms and a family-provision order. The court did not restore the earlier will or enforce its $200,000 legacy. It made a separate award after assessing Natalie’s dependency, relationship with her grandfather, financial circumstances and future needs.(Disclaimer: This article provides general information about a court decision and is not legal advice.)You use AI every day. Now get your AI Quotient. Take the AIQ test.