Adult Granddaughter Claims Up to $1 Million, Receives $125,000

Can an employed adult grandchild successfully challenge a grandparent’s will?

 In Barlow v Barlow [2026] NSWSC 484, the answer was yes, but only to a limited extent.

 The decision is a useful reminder that courts look beyond the family tree. The real questions are whether the claimant depended on the deceased, what responsibility the deceased assumed and whether the will failed to make adequate provision.

The facts

Terrence Barlow died in February 2024, leaving an estate worth at least $5.645 million,

principally comprising:

• a Burraneer home worth approximately $4.75 million; and

• a Shoal Bay property worth approximately $900,000.

 His will left $200,000 to his eldest daughter, Liza, who had reportedly been estranged from him for 20 years. The balance passed to his other three daughters.

 Nothing was left to any of his four grandchildren.

Liza’s 27-year-old daughter, Tianna, brought a family provision claim under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW).

Was Tianna dependent on her grandfather?

Tianna was born when her mother was 17. She and her mother lived with Terrence and his wife for approximately the first four years of her life.

Tianna experienced serious cardiac problems as a child. Her grandmother assisted with medical appointments, while Terrence paid related expenses and provided the family with accommodation.

Although the evidence was limited, Peden J accepted that Terrence had stood in loco parentis during those early years“perhaps unwillingly so”and that Tianna had been partially dependent upon him.

Tianna later returned to the family home at about 15 after her mother asked her to leave. She received rent-free accommodation, meals and some financial assistance.

However, the Court rejected her argument that Terrence had continued to act as a parent. Tianna spent significant time with her boyfriend’s family, worked throughout much of the relevant period and had previously rented accommodation independently.

The later relationship was characterised as that of grandfather and granddaughter,not parent and child.

The claim

Tianna sought provision from her grandfather’s estate including:

• up to $1 million to purchase a two-bedroom unit;

• a new car;

• repayment of an existing car loan;

• possible future IVF expenses;

• a $150,000 contingency fund; and

• provision for an alleged monthly income shortfall.

The Court described this as an “ambit claim” involving a “misplaced sense of entitlement”.

Tianna was employed full-time, had recently been promoted to store manager and had no demonstrated inability to continue working. Her expense evidence also contained inconsistencies and unexplained increases.  The Court was not satisfied that she had

established a need for a home, new vehicle, IVF treatment or lifetime medical provision.

The decision

Despite those weaknesses, the Court found that some provision was justified.

Relevant factors included:

• Terrence’s parental role during Tianna’s early childhood;

• the accommodation and support he had provided;

• Tianna’s limited assets and modest financial position; and

• the substantial size of the estate.

Tianna was awarded $125,000.  The result was therefore a partial success: eligibility and some historical dependency were established, but the amount awarded was far below the claim.

 Lessons for estate planning advisers and lawyers:

 1. Grandchildren are not automatically entitled

The responsibility to provide for a grandchild ordinarily rests with the child’s parents. A stronger claim may arise where the grandparent assumes a parental role or provides substantial and continuing support.

2. Accommodation can amount to dependency

Dependency is not limited to direct cash payments. Providing housing may satisfy an important need, but the circumstances and duration of the arrangement remain critical.

3. Generosity is not necessarily obligation

Gifts, school expenses, affection and occasional assistance do not automatically create testamentary responsibility. The Court distinguishes ordinary family generosity from genuine dependency.

4. Estate size matters, but does not create an entitlement

A large estate may permit a more liberal assessment of proper provision. It does not justify redistributing the estate merely because there is “plenty to go around”.

5. Financial evidence must be credible

Inflated budgets, unexplained expenditure and shifting claims can seriously damage a claimant’s credibility.

6. The estate planning file should record the family history

Where a client intends to exclude a grandchild or treat family branches differently, advisers should document:

• periods of co-residence;

• rent-free accommodation;

• medical or education expenses;

• any parental role assumed by the client;

• the nature and purpose of financial support; and

• the client’s considered reasons for the proposed distribution.

The practical takeaway

Barlow v Barlow shows that family provision risk cannot be assessed simply by looking at the family tree.

Advisers and lawyers need to understand who lived with the client, who depended upon them, what support was provided and whether the client assumed responsibilities extending beyond an ordinary family relationship.

That is one of the problems Inherit Australia is designed to address. Its structured estate planning process helps advisers identify gaps, capture family relationships, structures and intentions, and provide the lawyer with a more complete estate planning brief while legal advice and drafting remain with the lawyer.

 The practical question is therefore not merely:

 Who has been excluded from the will?

It is:

Who depended on the client, in what way, and what expectations did the client’s conduct create?

A carefully documented and properly advised estate plan may not prevent every claim, but it can substantially improve the client’s decision-making and the evidence available to defend their intentions.