Introduction: Family, Identity, and Accuracy
In a recent New South Wales Supreme Court decision, Meek J opened with a literary nod to L.M. Montgomery’s classic Anne of Green Gables. The story, he observed, captures both the diversity of family and the dignity of individual identity — lessons equally relevant to family provision proceedings.
Evans v Evans [2025] NSWSC 1263 involved the estate of Colin Norman Evans (the deceased), who passed away in February 2024 at the age of 62. Jordyn Evans (the plaintiff), one of the deceased’s children, brought a family provision claim against the deceased’s estate: Cherrie Evans (the defendant), the deceased’s widow from a 2016 marriage. The deceased had married four times and left a Will (dated 4 July 2023), leaving his modest estate to the defendant. With little property available, the plaintiff sought to have part of a superannuation pension account designated as notional estate.
Meek J used Evans v Evans [2025] NSWSC 1263 to highlight two recurring issues for practitioners:
- Identifying all eligible family members, primarily where multiple marriages or complex relationships exist; and
- Ensuring accurate spelling and use of names, both as a matter of respect and procedural necessity.
Evans v Evans [2025] NSWSC 1263, rich in both legal and literary insight, provides timely guidance following the June 2024 update to Practice Note SC Eq 7 (Family Provision Practice Note) — formalising the requirement for family tree diagrams and more precise identification of parties.
From Practice to Procedure: The Evolution of Information Requirements
For over a century, family provision practice in NSW evolved informally. From 1916 to 2009, lawyers relied on professional instinct to include the necessary details — typically, information about the deceased, the estate, and the applicant.
As the definition of “eligible persons” broadened in 1983, courts increasingly needed to understand a wider web of relationships. Yet until 2009, there was no official guidance. That changed with the introduction of a pro forma affidavit under the Family Provision Practice Note, which began the long process of bringing structure to the field.
Even so, between 2009 and 2024, affidavit practice remained inconsistent. Some affidavits followed the pro forma; others mirrored section 60 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW). Some were heavy with grievances and light on clarity. Administrators’ affidavits tended to be more uniform, but many still lacked sufficient “relationship detail” to allow the Court to confirm that the administrator had notified all eligible persons.
The result was delay, confusion, and frequent requisitions — particularly when parties do not serve former spouses with Notices of Claim.
The 2024 Practice Note: Introducing the Family Tree Diagram
The Supreme Court made a simple but transformative change in the June 2024 Practice Note: a family tree diagram was required to accompany a plaintiff’s affidavit. This visual tool enables the Court to grasp, at a glance, the deceased’s connections who may be eligible under Section 57 of the Succession Act, and meet the notification requirements.
The Court encourages a balanced (“lagom” Swedish word meaning ‘just the right amount’)approach — diagrams should be clear, proportionate, and practical. They should not omit essential relationships nor overwhelm the reader with unnecessary complexity.
Crucially, the diagram’s purpose is to identify eligible persons, not to list every beneficiary or distant relative. Information about beneficiaries can be found elsewhere, such as in affidavits, settlement checklists, and administrators’ materials.
What the Diagram Should Include
A helpful family tree diagram will name:
- The deceased;
- The current spouse, de facto, or close personal partner at death;
- Former spouses;
- Children (including adopted children);
- Grandchildren; and
- Persons who were members of the deceased’s household and dependent (in whole or in part) on the deceased.
Dates of birth, death, or separation, and notes on any legal incapacity are beneficial. For children, age determines whether they can receive a Notice of Claim directly or through a representative.
The Four Cornerstones: Timing, Ingenuity, Cooperation, and Consistency
His Honour identified four principles to guide practitioners:
- Timing – Prepare family tree diagrams well in advance. They help identify potential claimants and prevent late surprises.
- Ingenuity – Simplify complex family histories into comprehensible visuals.
- Cooperation – Parties share responsibility for ensuring the Court has the necessary information; if one party cannot supply the diagram, another should.
- Consistency – Cross-check names and relationships across all affidavits. Parties should correct Discrepancies before filing.
The Power of Names: Precision and Respect
A central theme of the judgment is the importance of names — their spelling, order, and cultural meaning. Names are more than administrative details; they confer identity and dignity.
The Chief Justice’s Name and Pronunciation Practice Note (NAP Practice Note), first issued in April 2024 and updated in August 2025, reflects growing recognition of the need for accuracy and cultural sensitivity, particularly regarding First Nations peoples and the depiction of deceased persons.
Practitioners are encouraged to:
- Use complete and correctly spelled names, retaining punctuation and hyphens;
- Record alternate or preferred names where relevant.
- Note legal incapacity or other special circumstances;
- Be alert to unisex names and preferred forms of address (e.g. Ms, Mr, Mx, Dr); and
- Avoid assumptions about the order or structure of names in cross-cultural contexts.
Naming in Practice: Variants, Nicknames, and Cultural Contexts
The Court provided vivid examples of why spelling vigilance matters. Variants like Ann/Anne, Michael/Micheal, Alecia/Aleshia, and creative forms such as Jessyka or Belynda are increasingly common. Nicknames and informal names also abound — some endearing, others ironic — and may appear in affidavits or correspondence.
Diacritical marks, or diacritics, are symbols like the acute (´), grave (è), circumflex (ˆ), diaeresis (¨), cedilla (¸), and tilde (~) that are rare in English but appear in loanwords to indicate specific pronunciations. Common examples in English include café (acute), cortège (grave), naïve (diaeresis), entrepôt (circumflex), garçon (cedilla), and jalapeño (tilde).
Many diacritics are often dropped in English over time, but some style guides recommend retaining them for clarity, especially in formal writing. The diaeresis is the only diacritic native to English, though it is seldom used today.
Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 provides that names must be registered using the English alphabet, and registrants are not permitted to record diacritical marks. Names of non-English origin may therefore appear in different transliterations. Practitioners should verify names against multiple sources and understand that registration is not the only way a name can change — use and reputation can suffice at law.
The Case in Practice: Four Marriages, Four Searches
Evans v Evans [2025] NSWSC 1263, tested these principles. The deceased had four marriages — to Annette Knox, Lisa-Maree Barnes, Deborah Brown, and the defendant. Initially, the plaintiff had served none of the former spouses with Notices of Claim.
Prompted by Meek J, the defendant’s solicitors diligently located each spouse.
- Deborah Brown (now Debbie Evans) served on 10 October 2025.
- Lisa-Maree Barnes confirmed awareness of and support for the settlement.
- Annette Merchant (née Knox) proved more challenging to locate, but after persistent searching, she was also found and served by 20–21 October 2025.
This persistence exemplified the Court’s message: do not stop at the first obstacle. Even limited information can lead to compliance if practitioners follow leads methodically.
The estate itself was modest — typical of many family provision claims where limited assets meet numerous potential claimants. The Court ultimately approved the proposed settlement, which consisted of a $90,000 lump sum payment to the plaintiff, drawn from the deceased’s superannuation (designated as the notional estate) and structured in two instalments. The plaintiff was to bear her own costs, with the defendant’s costs paid from the estate.
Conclusion: “The Joys of Sincere Work and Worthy Aspiration”
In closing, His Honour returned to Anne of Green Gables. Just as Anne’s initial miscommunication led to a happy resolution, the early missteps in this case — missing diagrams and unserved spouses — did not prevent a fair outcome once practitioners acted diligently.
Evans v Evans [2025] NSWSC 1263, closes on an encouraging note: with the aid of more explicit practice guidance, accurate diagrams, and careful naming, family provision practitioners can meet the Court’s objectives of justice, efficiency, and respect.
As Montgomery’s heroine put it, the goal is not mechanical compliance but “the joys of sincere work and worthy aspiration.”
Key Takeaways for Practitioners
- Prepare early — Draft family tree diagrams from the outset to identify eligible persons and streamline service.
- Be accurate — Double-check spellings, dates, and relationships across all affidavits.
- Be collaborative — Treat the identification of relationships as a shared, non-adversarial task.
- Be culturally sensitive — Follow the NAP Practice Note and respect preferred names and pronunciations.
- Be resourceful — Persist in locating eligible persons; initial difficulty is no excuse for inaction.
- Be balanced — Keep diagrams practical and legible — lagom — “just the right amount.”
The 2024 Practice Note signals a welcome evolution in family provision procedure — one that values clarity, compassion, and care in both law and language.