Can a friend contest a Will in NSW?
In New South Wales, the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) gives priority to spouses and relatives in estate claims. Friends do not have automatic standing to contest a Will. To be eligible, a friend must satisfy more stringent criteria and demonstrate that their relationship with the deceased extended beyond ordinary friendship.
What is a family provision claim?
A family provision claim enables an eligible person to apply to the Supreme Court for a redistribution of a deceased estate where adequate provision has not been made. Although the regime primarily addresses claims by family members, it may extend to non-family applicants in limited circumstances, typically where the applicant was dependent on the deceased.
Eligibility Criteria for Friends
A friend must meet specific eligibility requirements, generally demonstrating:
- Dependence: Reliance on the deceased for financial, material, or, to a lesser extent, emotional support.
- Emotional support alone is generally insufficient.
- Stronger claims typically involve regular financial or practical support, such as payment of rent or living expenses.
- Documentary evidence is critical for supporting a claim. In addition to bank records, other helpful documents may include rent receipts, utility bills, photographs showing cohabitation or shared events, text messages or emails demonstrating the nature of the relationship, and statutory declarations from people familiar with the parties. Collecting a variety of records can help show the closeness and interdependence required by the Court.
- Practitioners can proactively advise clients to keep detailed records of their interactions and support, including copies of correspondence and formal agreements. Encouraging clients to draft statutory declarations outlining the relationship and its nature, and to ask other witnesses to do the same, can strengthen a case. If possible, clients should also request third-party records such as tenancy agreements, medical attendance records, or care provider notes that reflect mutual support or shared living arrangements. Early and organised collection of this evidence can be pivotal in presenting a robust claim.
- Cohabitation: have lived with the deceased for a period.
- Lived for a period suggests a closer, interdependent relationship.
- Evidence may include lease agreements, utility bills, or other records demonstrating a shared address.
Establishing eligibility does not guarantee a successful claim. The Court will:
- respect the deceased’s testamentary intentions;
- weigh whether there was a moral obligation to provide for the friend; and
- assess all circumstances, including competing claims from family members.
The Court makes a family provision if the friend’s claim outweighs competing claims and justifies an alteration of the estate.
A friend may be eligible to bring a family provision claim if they were in a close personal relationship with the deceased and the Will did not make adequate provision for them. The Succession Act 2006 (NSW) requires that a close personal relationship exists between two adults living together where one or both provide domestic support and personal care, regardless of family ties. It excludes relationships if one is under 18, is married or in a de facto relationship, does not live together, or receives support for a fee or on behalf of an organisation. Covering various relationships, not just romantic ones, as long as the criteria are met. ‘Living together’ can mean sharing a home or having multiple homes, with a focus on relationship quality. ‘Domestic support and personal care’ includes activities such as shopping, cooking, housekeeping, medication assistance, financial support, and furnishing. The care must stem from a personal bond, not financial gain. The relationship must have existed at the time of death for a claim to be valid.
Corbould v Gay [2026] NSWSC 385
A recent decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales addresses the treatment of relationships outside traditional family categories in estate litigation. It’s an association, both ancient and modern, that has developed many words to describe a wide range of connections between people across the realm of ‘relationships’. Some relationships have a distinct status such that, whatever their precise character, the law accords them an irreducible core of rights and obligations. Sometimes such relationships are permanent.
“Frequently there is at least a basic tenure such that the relationship is not easily dissolved. Legal marriage, parentage and tenancy have some such qualities, whilst they subsist. Other relationships may be nascent, ephemeral, chameleonic and more easily lapsed. For example, innovative words such as ‘situationship’ have evolved to capture the essence of bare, evolving or transitioning relationships not yet defined in exclusive or more seriously committed terms. Less formal relationships, even if they endure, may defy precision both as to point of time and across time as they plateau or wax and wane.”



In Corbould v Gay [2026] NSWSC 385, Andrew Gordon Young (the deceased) and the beneficiaries of his 2010 Will (represented by solicitor Adrian Corbould, the plaintiff) are classified as having a ‘distinct status’—they are legally considered cousins of the deceased. In contrast, the relationship between the deceased and Michael William Gay (the defendant), who are not legally related, has been less clearly defined. The defendant’s counsel argues that Andrew Young and the defendant shared a very close (platonic) friendship with familial or kinship-like qualities. Meanwhile, the plaintiff’s counsel maintained that the true nature of their relationship remains “opaque.”
However, the inability to precisely identify or label the relationship does not diminish its meaningful character. The deceased died in 2021 at age 68, leaving no spouse, children, or parents. His principal asset was a home valued at approximately $1.15 million. Under a valid 2010 Will, the estate was left to his cousins. Two days before his death, a new document emerged purporting to leave the estate to a man with whom the deceased had lived for many years, whom he had met in rehabilitation and subsequently shared a home with.
Although not related by blood, the claimant asserted that the relationship was close and akin to family.
The legal issues
Meeks J was required to determine:
- whether the late-stage document constituted a valid Will; and
- If not, whether the friend was nonetheless entitled to provision from the estate.
His Honour rejected the purported last-minute Will, finding it had not been properly executed under section 6 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW), requiring that a Will be signed by the testator and witnessed by at least two people in their presence. In this case, there was uncertainty about whether the deceased personally signed the document and whether any witnesses were present at the time of signing.
Meek J also considered concerns about the deceased’s testamentary capacity arising from serious illness, referencing the legal test established in Banks v Goodfellow (1870) and s 7 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW). The evidence presented suggested that the deceased may not have fully understood the nature and effect of the document. The late timing and absence of legal oversight further cast doubt on the Will’s validity. Accordingly, the Court declined to admit the purported 2021 document to probate and instead admitted the 2010 Will in favour of the cousins.
The strength of the family provision claim
Although the latter document did not meet the requirements for a valid Will, the friend succeeded in his family provision claim. In this case, the Court awarded the friend a 40% share of the deceased’s estate, including a portion of the principal asset, the home, valued at approximately $1.15 million. This relief reflected the significant support and cohabitation demonstrated by the claimant, while also balancing the competing claims of the deceased’s cousins.
NSW law extends eligibility to persons in a close personal relationship with the deceased. The Court found that the relationship in question exceeded mere friendship. The parties had cohabited for many years, shared daily life, and provided each other with mutual companionship and practical support. The friend contributed to household tasks and assisted the deceased during illness.
This degree of mutual reliance and shared life was sufficient to establish a qualifying relationship, despite the absence of blood or romantic ties. The Court concluded that the deceased had not made adequate provision for the friend, who was therefore entitled to a share of the estate.
Time limits
A claimant must generally commence a family provision claim within 12 months of the date of death. However, the Court may permit late applications if a satisfactory explanation for the delay is provided. For example, the Court may excuse a delay if the claimant did not initially know about the death, was unaware of their eligibility to make a claim, was suffering from serious illness, or faced other circumstances beyond their control. The Court considers each case on its merits and the provision of supporting evidence. In Purnell v Tindale [2020] NSWSC 746, a nephew filed an “out of time” family provision claim, claiming he was unaware of his inheritance and delayed seeking legal advice due to mental health issues and financial inability. The Court found that the nephew had shown sufficient cause for the delay, as the ignorance of his entitlement, health problems, and lack of funds affected his ability to act promptly. He ultimately failed in his claim because he was not an eligible person.
In Morgan v Black [2023] NSWSC 1073, a daughter’s claim was denied for lack of sufficient cause because she was aware of the time limit, took minimal legal action, and delayed for personal reasons. In Ansett -v- Moss [2007] VSCA 161, the Victorian Court of Appeal reviewed a Supreme Court decision concerning the estate of Sir Reginald Ansett, who passed away in 1981 with an estate valued at $8,200,000.00. Most of the estate was allocated to charities, with modest bequests to the Plaintiffs, larger gifts to his stepchildren, and a life interest in part of the estate for his second wife. Following her death in 2003, Sir Reginald’s stepdaughter made claims, prompting the Plaintiffs also to pursue claims. The Court initially held that the deceased bore no responsibility toward either Plaintiff, John Ansett or Robert Ansett, and that they had failed to prove a reasonable excuse for delaying beyond the six months. Consequently, the application for provision was denied. However, on appeal, the decision was reversed, and the application was remanded to the trial division for rehearing by a different judge.
Conclusion
Friendship alone is insufficient. A successful claim generally requires clear evidence of dependence and a shared life, elevating the relationship to one resembling a domestic or familial arrangement under the law.
Key Points
- Last-minute Wills present significant risks and are frequently challenged, particularly where capacity or proper execution is in question.
- A valid Will does not preclude eligible persons from bringing a family provision claim in New South Wales.
- Close personal relationships may be recognised for family provision claims, even in the absence of legal or biological ties.
- Careful estate planning remains essential to minimise disputes, costs, and unintended outcomes. Legal practitioners can advise clients to take several practical steps to reduce the risk of successful claims by non-family members. For instance, lawyers can ensure that Wills clearly document the testator’s intentions and the reasons for making or excluding specific gifts, especially in cases where non-family relationships exist. Including a statement of reasons or a confidential memorandum outlining the relationship with potential non-family claimants may assist the Court by showing the testator’s wishes were carefully considered. Practitioners can encourage clients to review and update their Wills regularly as circumstances change, and to keep records that evidence independence or lack of financial interdependence with friends or housemates. Discussing and documenting support arrangements, loans, or gifts can also clarify the nature of the relationship and help avoid ambiguity.
- For potential claimants, understanding the basics of estate planning and the structure of Wills can clarify what to look for when considering a claim, such as how assets are distributed or whether adequate provision has been made for eligible persons. By reviewing estate documents closely, claimants can better assess the merits of their case and identify factors that may support it.