Court overrules inheritance of Grandson

Nov 22, 2022 | Publication | 0 comments

A man who won an inheritance from a Supreme Court of NSW judge has had the same inheritance taken away from him by the NSW Court of Appeal.

Robert Wilcox was left out of his Grandfather’s Will and everything was left to Robert’s mother, Patricia. Robert brought a claim under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) for provision from his Grandfather’s estate. The primary judge agreed with Robert’s claim and ordered that an immediate payment of $107,000 be made to Robert, with seven annual payments of $40,000 commencing after two years.

Patricia appealed to the NSW Court of Appeal and won. Justices Basten, Barrett and Gleeson ordered that the provision made by the primary judge be disallowed. Robert was ordered to pay Patricia’s costs.

The main issue in the case was whether the primary judge erred in his discretion to order provision in light of the factual circumstances.

The Court of Appeal held that it is appropriate to have regard to perceived prevailing community standards of what is right and appropriate even though this may be an imprecise, variable and contestable standard.

When determining whether community standards indicate that provision ought to be made for a grandchild, guidance may be taken from the reality that, generally, a grandparent does not have a responsibility to make provision for a grandchild. That responsibility is not enlivened because a grandparent contributes to a grandchild’s education or bestows considerable largesse on him or her. Something more than the existence of normal family relations and affections is required.

The conferral of particular care and affection by a grandchild and his or her legitimate expectations of inheritance may be relevant to determining whether such an obligation exists.

Other matters to be taken into account may include the size and nature of the estate, the relationships involved and the circumstances and needs of other persons.

The Court of Appeal in Chapple v Wilcox NSWCA 392 held that the decision of the primary judge, on the facts, was unreasonable or plainly unjust in such a way that there had been a failure to properly exercise the judicial discretion.

The information in this publication is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, we do not guarantee that the information in this publication is accurate at the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. We are not responsible for the information of any source to which a link is provided or reference is made and exclude all liability in connection with use of these sources. If you do not wish to receive newsletters from us, please let us know.

Latest Insights

How does the court assess pain and suffering?

In New South Wales (NSW), the assessment of pain and suffering—referred to legally as non-economic loss—is governed by the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) ("CLA"). This is compensation for the intangible effects of the injury, such as pain and suffering, loss of...

Property Disputes – How Can They Arise?

Property disputes arise in many different ways – not only in commercial contexts but also in residential settings.  Some of the types of property disputes include:...

Can a Child under 14 years commit a Crime?

In New South Wales, the age of criminal responsibility is 10 years old.  A child under 10 cannot be charged with a criminal offence. For children aged 10 to under 14, there is a legal presumption known as doli incapax, which assumes the child is incapable of...

Why is it important to know who your client is?

In a range of contexts, it is important to know who your client is. In most professional service contexts, the identity of the client is the starting point to providing advice.  If it is not clear who the professional advisor is advising, this can cause issues as...

Mental Harm Damages Following Birth Trauma: Lessons from Sorbello

In South Western Sydney Local Health District v Sorbello [2024] NSWCA 14, the New South Wales Court of Appeal has provided timely guidance on two important issues in personal injury litigation: how courts choose between competing expert opinions on mental harm, and...

Damages for Defamation – Newman v Whittington [2025] NSWSC 275

A family dispute resolution practitioner was awarded $150,000 in aggravated damages, $10,000 in interest, and an injunction in a recent Supreme Court of New South Wales case. The defendant posted defamatory statements about the plaintiff on WordPress, Facebook, and...

Review Panel Determines Right Hand Injury as Non-Threshold Injury

The Personal Injury Commission (PIC) has ruled in Tasseli v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2025] NSWPICMP 49 that damage to pre-existing surgical hardware constitutes a non-threshold injury, entitling the Claimant to ongoing statutory benefits and...

What are 5 legal requirements for a business?

When a new business is set up, there are various legal aspects which should be considered.  Some are more important than others in the early stages.  Obviously the nature of the business will dictate more specific legal requirements. We set out below some...

Court Dismisses Group Proceeding

A significant class action against Waller Legal Pty Ltd has been halted after the Supreme Court of Victoria ruled that the proceeding should no longer continue as a group proceeding. The case, Jane Jones (a pseudonym) v Waller Legal Pty Ltd [2025] VSC 42, involved...