Change location v

De facto partner awarded further provision after contesting will

The Plaintiff, Ms Weekes, is contesting a will in the estate of the late Dallas John Rhodes Nunn. She is an eligible person, and ultimately, as a de facto partner awarded further provision.

The Plaintiff approached wills disputes lawyers in order to determine how to contest a will.

The defendant is a child of the deceased and one of the two executors of the will. The Plaintiff is the other executor. The deceased’s will provided to the Plaintiff a vehicle owned by the deceased at the date of death, a legacy of $50,000.00 and household chattels in the residence owned by the deceased.

The value of the estate is $686,364.00. a legacy of $50,000.00 has been paid to the plaintiff and one of $30,000 has been paid to the defendant. A further $14,106 has been paid to the Plaintiff on account of her living expenses. With other things considered, the agreed upon distributable net value of the estate is $531,616.00.

Proper and Adequate Provision

In contesting a will, Hallen J found that it is necessary for the court to keep a close consideration of the myriad of facts in order to determine whether or not proper and adequate provision has been provided. The following facts were considered:

1.       Ms Weekes had a long and happy de facto relationship with the deceased;

2.       Ms Weekes made significant contributions to the estate of the deceased;

3.       Ms Weekes has a total of $176,177 in savings;

4.       Ms Weekes has a Gold Card which entitles her to funding for various health care needs;

5.       Ms Weekes has liabilities of approximately $500.00 per month.

6.       Ms Weekes required future accommodation in a nursing home.

7.       Ms Weekes is 92 years old at the time or proceedings.

8.       Ms Weekes cared for the deceased. The defendant acknowledged that she took care of every aspect of the deceased’s life.

9.       Only the defendant, Judith Barlow, contributed to the deceased before death.

10.   The deceased partially maintained Ms Weekes during their relationship.

11.   Ms Weekes has thus far received $64,106.00 out of the estate.

Hallen J found, based on these factors, proper and adequate provision was not made. It is clear the Ms Weekes has needs. As such, Ms Weekes was successful in contesting a will.


Provision was made for Ms Weekes in the form of a lump sum. This was in the amount of $100,000.00, on top of the $64,000.00 already received.

If you feel that you have not been properly provided for in a will please do not hesitate to contact GMP Contesting a Will Lawyers, where a number of highly experienced wills dispute lawyers and barristers are waiting to assist you with how to contest a will, challenging a will, any will disputes and the grounds for contesting a will.

© 2021 
Contesting Wills
 — Gerard Malouf & Partners

Website Design by MediaSmiths

Your location is currently: