Angius v Angius [2025] NSWCA 113 a recent decision of the NSW Court of Appeal affirms that grandchildren may successfully claim provision under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) if they can demonstrate partial dependency on the deceased and other compelling circumstances warranting judicial intervention — even where the Will-maker has intentionally excluded them from a substantial estate.
On 31 January 2022, Giovanni (John) Angius died (the deceased), leaving an estate valued at nearly $29.6 million. Under his final Will, dated 21 April 2021, the deceased’s daughter, Jenny Angius (the appellant), was named the sole beneficiary. Making no provision for his son, Robert Angius, nor for Robert’s daughters, including Natalie Angius (the respondent). Notably, this 2021 Will replace an earlier 2012 Will in which the respondent had been promised an indexed legacy of $200,000.
Following the deceased’s death, the respondent brought proceedings to the Supreme Court of NSW under the Succession Act. As a grandchild, the respondent had to prove she was wholly or partly dependent on the deceased, that there were “factors warranting” her claim, and that his Will failed to make adequate provision for her proper maintenance and advancement in life.
Family History and Dependency
A complex family history shaped the respondent’s claim. A major rift developed in 2007 when the deceased’s wife, Laura, accused him of having an affair, dividing the family. The appellant sided with the deceased, and Robert aligned with Laura. The deceased and Laura formally separated in 2010–2011, and following Laura’s death in 2012, Robert inherited her $13 million estate.
The respondent, a daughter from the deceased’s son Robert’s first marriage to Silvana Salvatore, was estranged from her father. As a child, and following the respondent’s parents’ separation, the deceased stepped in to meet financial obligations that Robert had left unmet, including payments totalling over $230,000 for child support, a property settlement and other benefits. The deceased also made additional payments to support the respondent and her mother.
The respondent reconnected with the deceased around age 16. Following her diagnosis with multiple sclerosis in 2014, their relationship deepened. The respondent frequently visited and assisted the deceased, and he supported her financially through direct cash gifts and regular payments — especially when she was unable to work due to illness or injury. The respondents’ health costs remain substantial, with an expectation that they will increase.
The respondent submitted that in 2021, shortly before his death, the deceased expressed an intention to prepare a new Will to provide for his grandchildren. The deceased also instructed a solicitor to appoint the respondent as his joint attorney and guardian, claiming the 2021 Will — excluding all grandchildren — was only temporary.
Supreme Court Decision
In Le v Angius; Angius v Angius [2024] NSWSC 924, Richmond J accepted that the respondent had partially depended on the deceased during her childhood and adulthood. His Honour found that the respondent’s relationship with the deceased went beyond a typical grandparent-grandchild bond. Additionally, the respondent had no realistic prospect of receiving financial support from her parents. His Honour made an order for provision of $2.55 million from the estate.
The Appeal
On appeal, the appellant submitted that:
- The respondent was not dependent on the deceased within the meaning of s 57(1)(e) of the Succession Act;
- There were no “factors warranting” the respondent’s application, and
- The amount awarded was excessive.
The Court of Appeal (Mitchelmore JA, Bell CJ and Ball JA) dismissed the appeal on all grounds.
1. Dependency Established:
The Court found that the financial support the deceased provided the respondent during adulthood — particularly after her diagnosis — satisfied the eligibility threshold under the Succession Act. Even if the respondent could meet her basic needs independently, she could still be considered partially dependent on the deceased ([58]–[60]).
Key authorities considered: Chisak v Presot [2022] NSWCA 100, Alexander v Jansson [2010] NSWCA 176, Spata v Tumino (2018) 95 NSWLR 706.
2. Factors Warranting Found:
The Court upheld the finding that the nature of the deceased and respondent’s relationship and financial vulnerability justified the application. The primary judge made no legal error in his treatment of the evidence ([65]–[75]).
Key authorities applied: Curtis v Curtis [2024] NSWCA 136; Tobin v Ezekiel (2012) 83 NSWLR 757; House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499.
3. Provision Amount Within Discretion:
The Court confirmed that the award of $2.55 million was open on the evidence. The primary judge was entitled to make an allowance for future needs beyond respondent’s counsel submissions and was not bound to accept Jenny’s view of the medical evidence ([84]–[88]).
Key authorities applied: Andrew v Andrew (2012) 81 NSWLR 656; Permanent Trustee Co Ltd v Fraser (1995) 36 NSWLR 24.
Final Thoughts
To succeed in a Family Provision Claim, the claimant must:
1. Prove that the provision from the will or intestacy laws is insufficient to meet their legitimate needs.
2. Show that their individual circumstances, including financial needs, relationship with the deceased, estate size, and the situation of other beneficiaries, warrant a claim.
This decision underscores several key points for will-makers, advisers, and practitioners:
- Grandchildren can claim provision where they show dependency and compelling circumstances, even if they are not typically considered “natural objects of bounty”.
- “Dependency” is broadly interpreted — financial support of a non-essential kind, particularly during periods of illness, can be sufficient.
- Testamentary intentions may be displaced where the Court finds a moral duty to provide for a claimant.
The ruling also reflects the Court’s compassionate engagement with the realities of chronic illness, family estrangement, and long-term care needs. It underscores that where estate assets are ample and relationships nuanced, even adult grandchildren may be entitled to a share — particularly if they were once part of the testator’s financial and emotional support network.