Under the final will of the deceased, Giovanni (John) Angius, Jenny Angius, his daughter, is the sole beneficiary of his estate which had a net value of $29,588,261. No provision was made for the respondent, his granddaughter, Natalie Angius. The final Will replaced a Will John made in 2012, under which Natalie was to receive an index legacy of $200,000.
Natalie applied for a family provision claim under theSuccession Act 2006 (NSW) (the Act). The primary judge found that she had been partially dependent on John during both her childhood and adulthood and accordingly awarded her a provision of $2,550,000.
Jenny appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the primary judge’s assessment of the evidence and application of the relevant factors of the Act. The Court’s reasoning in dismissing the appeal focused on two key issues relating to eligibility and the adequacy of the provision awarded.
- The payments that John made to Natalie when she was an adult were of a nature and sufficiency that satisfied the eligibility threshold in s 57(1)(e) of the Act.
Natalie’s father, Robert, was estranged from her and her mother, Silvana. Following their separation, John stepped in to fulfil Robert’s outstanding child support obligations by making monthly payments to Silvana on his behalf. Following Natalie’s diagnosis with multiple sclerosis in 2014, John provided her with regular financial support to compensate for her loss of income due to her inability to work, recognising the seriousness of her illness and the lack of support from Robert. This support, which increased over time and ultimately replaced her income, indicated that Natalie was at least partially dependent on John.
- The primary judge made a greater allowance for Natalie’s future needs than was advanced by her counsel was within his Honour’s discretion and not against the evidence.
The Supreme Court found that the primary judge did not err in the quantum of the provision awarded to Natalie, as the decision was supported by the evidence and aligned with the relevant factors under s 60(2) of the Act. Specifically, Natalie shared a close and loving relationship with John, provided care and support in his final years, and he had an intention to nominate Natalie as one of his (joint) attorneys and guardians. The primary judge found that John had a moral responsibility to her and had made provision for her during his lifetime, with earlier testamentary intentions indicating she was a proper beneficiary. The judge also appropriately considered expert medical evidence about Natalie’s progressive multiple sclerosis and her likely future needs.
The Angius case underscores the importance of thoroughly assessing both past and ongoing dependency in family provision claims under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW). It highlights how courts will consider the nature and extent of financial support, the closeness of relationships, and the deceased’s testamentary intentions when determining appropriate provision.
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.