The Supreme Court of New South Wales has again decided on the treatment of an estranged adult child in a family provision claim, delivering useful guidance in Pilatos v Whillier [2025] NSWSC 1221.
Take-away points
- Estrangement is never decisive.
- If the Court considers that adequate provision has already been made, it may, order costs against the applicant.
- A cost order can significantly decrease the monetary result for the losing party.
FACTS
- The case concerned an application by Renee Pilatos, the youngest daughter of the deceased, Mr William Hemmings. Renee had been estranged from her father for approximately 15 years and challenged the distribution set out in his Will.
- Mr Hemmings had three daughters.
- Pursuant to his Will, Mr Hemmings left:
- 50% of his estate to his eldest daughter, Sonja,
- 15 % to both Renee and his other daughter, Dallas and
- the remaining 20 % to Mr Whiller, a good friend and also the appointed executor.
- Renee argued that her estrangement should not diminish her claim and that she was entitled to a greater share of her father’s estate from Mr Whiller’s share – a non family member.
ISSUES
- The central issue was whether Renee, despite long-term estrangement, had been left without “adequate provision” within the meaning of s 59 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW), under her late father’s Will.
- The Judge reaffirmed that estrangement does not automatically extinguish a parent’s moral duty to an adult child. His Honour observed that the Court must undertake a “multifaceted evaluative assessment” examining the nature, causes, and context of the estrangement.
- His Honour emphasised that adult children remain “natural recipients of a parent’s testamentary recognition” unless clear evidence displaces that assumption. Bennett J further noted that “neither independence nor emotional distance, of themselves, negate the moral claim of an adult child.”
DECISION
- His Honour Bennett J:
- rejected that independence or poor relations strip an adult child of their moral claim; and
- emphasised in this case that Renee, the applicant still bore the onus of demonstrating both need and a factual foundation for increased provision.
- On the evidence, the Court concluded that the will made “sufficient and proper provision” for Renee and accordingly dismissed her claim.
- Interestingly, his Honour ordered Renee to pay the defendant’s legal costs, finding the claim wasn’t strong enough to be paid out of the estate.
The case in full can be found at: Pilatos v Whillier [2025] NSWSC 1221 (17 October 2025)
Note: This is not intended to be legal advice and cannot be relied upon as such.