The recent NSW Supreme Court decision in [case name withheld] presents a fascinating intersection of human complexity and legal categorisation that challenges our traditional understanding of inheritance rights [1]. Justice Peter Brereton’s ruling, which awarded an entire $300,000 estate to a former partner despite their tumultuous nine-year on-again off-again relationship, illuminates the profound difficulties courts face when real-life relationships refuse to conform to neat legal definitions. This case serves as a compelling reminder that when it comes to inheritance disputes involving cyclical relationships, “it all comes down to the facts” – a principle that both simplifies and complicates our approach to succession law.
Need Expert Legal Advice on Inheritance Disputes? If you’re facing complex inheritance issues involving non-traditional relationships, the experienced team at Hayton Kosky can help. Contact us today for a confidential consultation about your family provision claim or estate dispute.
Understanding Intestate Succession in NSW: The Harsh Reality of Dying Without a Will
When someone dies without a will, they effectively surrender control over their life’s work to what one legal expert aptly described as an “imaginary will that the government imposes” [1]. The Succession Act 2006 (NSW) creates a rigid hierarchy of inheritance that prioritizes formal legal relationships over the messy realities of human connection [2]. In this particular case, the deceased man’s sister stood to inherit his entire estate simply by virtue of being his closest surviving relative under the intestacy rules – despite having no apparent ongoing relationship with him in his final years.
This mechanical application of succession law reveals a fundamental tension in our legal system. While intestacy rules serve the important function of providing certainty and preventing disputes, they can produce outcomes that seem to defy common sense and natural justice. The deceased man had no spouse, no children, and no living parents. His sister, by operation of law, became entitled to everything he had worked for throughout his life, regardless of whether he would have wanted this outcome or whether she had any meaningful connection to his later years.
The intestacy framework, while providing administrative efficiency, often fails to account for the complex web of relationships that characterize modern life. It assumes that blood relationships necessarily translate to emotional bonds and financial dependency, an assumption that this case clearly challenges. The deceased man’s most significant relationship was not with his sister, but with a woman who had shared his life intermittently for nearly a decade – a relationship that the court ultimately recognised as deserving of legal protection, despite its unconventional nature.
Cyclical Relationships and Inheritance Law: The Challenge of On-Again Off-Again Partnerships
Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of this case lies in how the court grappled with what Justice Brereton characterized as a “cyclical” relationship [1]. The couple’s nine-year connection was marked by periods of intense cohabitation followed by separations, domestic violence orders, substance abuse issues, and repeated reconciliations. Their final separation occurred just months before the man’s death, following what the court described as “another drunken and abusive outburst.”
Traditional legal categories struggle to accommodate such relationships. The former partner could not establish a de facto relationship under the conventional definition, which typically requires continuous cohabitation for at least two years without shared children [3]. The intermittent nature of their living arrangements, combined with the absence of children, meant she fell outside the primary categories of intestate succession. Yet to dismiss her claim entirely would have ignored the substantial reality of their connection and her genuine dependency on the deceased.
Justice Brereton’s analysis reveals the sophisticated approach courts must take when confronted with relationships that defy easy categorisation. Rather than focusing solely on formal requirements, the court examined the substance of the relationship: the deceased man’s provision of accommodation “from time to time over nine years,” the woman’s contributions to household maintenance and expenses, and most significantly, the court’s finding that she was “the closest thing he had to a love of his life” [1].
This approach reflects a growing judicial recognition that human relationships exist on a spectrum that cannot always be captured by rigid legal definitions. The court’s willingness to look beyond technical requirements to assess genuine dependency and household membership represents an evolution in how our legal system approaches non-traditional relationships. As legal expert Adrian Corbould observed, “A successful claimant doesn’t have to have a peaches and cream relationship because that’s just not life” [1].
The cyclical nature of the relationship, rather than undermining the woman’s claim, actually strengthened it in some respects. The repeated reconciliations demonstrated the enduring nature of their bond, while the periods of separation highlighted her vulnerability and dependency. Justice Brereton specifically noted that if the man had not died, the couple “could easily have reunited at some point” [1], suggesting that the relationship’s interruption by death was perhaps just another temporary separation in an ongoing pattern.
Family Provision Claims NSW: A Legal Safety Net for Complex Relationships
The case ultimately turned on the application of NSW family provision legislation, which serves as a crucial safety net for those who fall through the gaps of formal succession law. Section 57 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) allows eligible persons to seek a family provision order if inadequate provision has been made for them from an estate [4]. The legislation recognises that a person who was “at any particular time, wholly or partly dependent on the deceased” and was “a member of the same household as the deceased” may qualify for such relief [4].
This provision represents a legislative acknowledgment that inheritance rights should not be determined solely by formal legal relationships or the mechanical application of intestacy rules. Instead, it allows courts to consider the practical realities of dependency and household membership, providing a mechanism for addressing cases where strict legal categories produce unjust outcomes.
The former partner’s successful claim demonstrates how family provision legislation can accommodate complex relationship dynamics that don’t fit traditional molds. Her intermittent residence in the deceased’s home, combined with her contributions to household maintenance and her partial financial dependency, established the necessary foundation for her claim. The court’s finding that she was a “partly dependent member of his household” [1] shows how these provisions can capture relationships that exist in the grey areas between formal categories.
What makes this case particularly significant is Justice Brereton’s decision to award the entire estate to the former partner, rather than dividing it between her and the sister. Such complete awards are “very unusual” in family provision claims [1], typically occurring only in cases involving small estates where division would be impractical. The decision reflects the court’s assessment that the deceased owed no meaningful moral duty to his sister, while his obligations to his former partner were substantial and unmet.
This outcome challenges traditional assumptions about family obligations and inheritance rights. The sister, despite being the deceased’s closest blood relative and the person entitled to inherit under intestacy law, received nothing beyond the recovery of her legal costs. The court’s reasoning suggests that legal entitlement under intestacy rules does not automatically translate to moral entitlement to provision from an estate, particularly where other relationships demonstrate greater practical significance and dependency.
Proving Cyclical Relationships in Court: The Evidentiary Challenge for Inheritance Disputes
One of the most complex aspects of cases involving cyclical relationships lies in the evidentiary challenges they present. Courts must reconstruct relationships that may have spanned many years, involved multiple separations and reconciliations, and included periods of both harmony and conflict. The task becomes even more difficult when, as in this case, one party has died and cannot provide their perspective on the relationship’s significance.
Justice Brereton’s judgment reveals the careful analysis required to assess such relationships. The court examined not only the formal aspects of the couple’s connection – their engagement, the exchange of rings, periods of cohabitation – but also the practical elements that demonstrated genuine interdependency. The woman’s contributions to cooking, cleaning, laundry, and garden maintenance, combined with her financial contributions to household expenses, painted a picture of a relationship that, despite its difficulties, involved genuine mutual support and dependency [1].
The court also had to grapple with the relationship’s darker aspects, including domestic violence and substance abuse issues that affected both parties. Rather than viewing these problems as disqualifying factors, Justice Brereton recognised them as part of the complex reality of the relationship. The judgment notes that both parties were “prone to anger and violence” but “continued to meet in defiance of the apprehended domestic violence orders to which each of them was bound” [1]. This pattern of behavior, while troubling, actually supported the conclusion that their bond was profound and enduring, even if unhealthy.
The evidentiary approach taken in this case provides important guidance for practitioners dealing with similar situations. It demonstrates the need to gather comprehensive evidence about the practical aspects of cyclical relationships, including financial contributions, domestic arrangements, and patterns of dependency that may not be immediately apparent. The court’s willingness to consider the relationship’s potential for future reconciliation also suggests that temporary separations should not be viewed as definitive endpoints when assessing the overall significance of a connection.
NSW Succession Law Reform: Policy Implications for Modern Relationships
This decision raises important questions about the adequacy of our current legal framework for addressing modern relationship patterns. The increasing prevalence of non-traditional relationships – including cyclical partnerships, long-distance relationships, and other arrangements that don’t conform to conventional models – suggests that our succession laws may need to evolve to better accommodate contemporary social realities.
The case highlights a fundamental tension between the need for legal certainty and the desire for individualized justice. Intestacy rules serve important functions: they provide predictability, reduce administrative costs, and prevent disputes by establishing clear hierarchies of entitlement. However, as this case demonstrates, rigid application of these rules can sometimes produce outcomes that seem to contradict basic notions of fairness and natural justice.
Family provision legislation attempts to bridge this gap by allowing courts to consider individual circumstances and relationships that fall outside traditional categories. However, the discretionary nature of these provisions creates its own challenges. The outcome in any given case depends heavily on the particular facts and the court’s assessment of competing claims, making it difficult for parties to predict results with confidence.
The decision also raises questions about the role of moral obligations in inheritance law. Justice Brereton’s finding that the deceased owed a “moral duty” to his former partner but not to his sister [1] suggests that courts are willing to look beyond formal legal relationships to assess genuine obligations based on dependency and care. This approach aligns with broader trends in family law toward recognising functional rather than purely formal relationships, but it also introduces additional complexity and uncertainty into succession planning.
From a policy perspective, the case highlights the importance of encouraging will-making as a means of avoiding these complex determinations entirely. Had the deceased made a will, he could have clearly expressed his intentions regarding the distribution of his estate, potentially avoiding the need for costly and emotionally fraught litigation. The case serves as a powerful reminder that intestacy is not a neutral default position but rather a government-imposed distribution scheme that may not reflect an individual’s actual wishes or relationships.
The Human Cost of Legal Complexity
Beyond its legal significance, this case illustrates the profound human costs associated with inheritance disputes involving complex relationships. The former partner discovered her partner’s death through Facebook six weeks after it occurred [1], highlighting the isolation and disconnection that can characterize the end of cyclical relationships. Her subsequent legal battle to secure recognition of their relationship and her entitlement to provision from his estate represents not just a financial claim but a quest for validation of their shared history.
The sister’s position, while legally strong under intestacy rules, was ultimately undermined by the absence of any meaningful ongoing relationship with her brother. The court’s decision to award her nothing beyond legal costs recovery suggests that formal family relationships, without more, may not be sufficient to establish moral entitlement to inheritance in cases where other relationships demonstrate greater practical significance.
This dynamic reflects broader social changes in how we understand and value different types of relationships. Traditional nuclear family structures, while still important, no longer represent the exclusive model for significant human connections. Courts are increasingly called upon to recognise and protect relationships that may not fit conventional categories but nonetheless involve genuine interdependency and care.
Looking Forward: The Evolution of Succession Law
This decision represents part of a broader evolution in how our legal system approaches non-traditional relationships and inheritance rights. The court’s sophisticated analysis of a cyclical relationship, combined with its willingness to award complete relief to a claimant who fell outside traditional categories, suggests growing judicial recognition of the diversity of modern relationship patterns.
However, the case also highlights the limitations of our current legal framework. The need to resort to discretionary family provision legislation to achieve a just outcome demonstrates that our intestacy rules may be increasingly inadequate for addressing contemporary social realities. Future legislative reform might consider expanding the categories of relationships recognised under intestacy law or developing more nuanced approaches to assessing relationship significance.
The decision also raises questions about the role of alternative dispute resolution in inheritance matters involving complex relationships. The emotional and financial costs associated with contested succession proceedings suggest that mediation and other collaborative approaches might be particularly valuable in cases involving cyclical relationships, where the parties’ shared history may provide a foundation for negotiated resolution.
Conclusion
The NSW Supreme Court’s decision in this inheritance dispute represents a significant development in how our legal system approaches the intersection of complex relationships and succession rights. Justice Brereton’s ruling demonstrates that courts are capable of sophisticated analysis when confronted with relationships that defy traditional categorisation, but it also highlights the challenges and uncertainties inherent in such determinations.
The case serves as a powerful reminder that “it all comes down to the facts” – a principle that both simplifies and complicates our approach to inheritance law. While this fact-specific approach allows for individualised justice and recognition of diverse relationship patterns, it also creates uncertainty and unpredictability that can make succession planning more challenging.
For practitioners, the decision provides valuable guidance on how courts will assess cyclical relationships and the types of evidence that may be relevant in family provision claims. For individuals in non-traditional relationships, it offers both hope and a cautionary tale about the importance of clear testamentary planning.
Most fundamentally, the case reflects broader social changes in how we understand and value different types of human connections. As our society continues to evolve away from traditional relationship models, our legal system must grapple with increasingly complex questions about which relationships deserve recognition and protection. This decision suggests that courts are rising to meet this challenge, but it also highlights the ongoing need for legislative and policy reform to ensure that our succession laws remain relevant and just in an era of relationship diversity.
The ultimate lesson of this case may be that love, dependency, and human connection cannot always be captured by rigid legal categories. When confronted with the messy realities of human relationships, our legal system must be flexible enough to recognise and protect bonds that may not fit conventional molds but nonetheless represent genuine and significant connections deserving of legal recognition. In doing so, we move closer to a succession law framework that serves not just administrative efficiency but also the deeper values of justice and human dignity that should underpin all legal decision-making.
References
[1] Whitbourn, M. (2025, July 22). The sister, the lover and the $300,000 inheritance fight. The Age. Available at: https://www.theage.com.au/national/nsw/the-sister-the-lover-and-the-300-000-inheritance-fight-20250721-p5mgh5.html
[2] Succession Act 2006 (NSW). Available at: https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/whole/html/inforce/current/act-2006-080
[3] Legal Aid NSW. (n.d.). Family provision claims. Available at: https://www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au/my-problem-is-about/someone-who-died/wills-and-estates/family-provision-claims
[4] Succession Act 2006 (NSW), s 57.