Australia’s First Billionaire Died Without a Will: The Cautionary Tale of Robert Holmes à Court

When a Fortune Becomes a Legal Minefield

When Australia’s first billionaire, Robert Holmes à Court, died suddenly in 1990 at age 53, he left behind not only a vast commercial empire but also a legal and administrative vacuum. Despite his legal training and sophisticated financial dealings, Holmes à Court died without a valid will. His estate—once valued at over A$2 billion before the 1987 crash, and still estimated at over A$400 million at his death—became one of the most prominent examples of intestacy in modern Australian corporate history.

What Went Wrong?

Under the Administration Act 1903 (WA), Western Australian intestacy laws dictated the division of his estate: one-third to his widow, Janet Holmes à Court, and two-thirds divided among their four children. This “default” outcome concealed years of complexity, family strain, and unintended consequences:

• No instructions: There was no written guidance on how to manage the sprawling group of companies, trusts, and personal assets.

• No control for the surviving spouse: Janet ultimately rebuilt the family legacy and regained control of the Heytesbury Group, but did so without any legal authority from her late husband’s wishes.

• Tax and legal uncertainty: The absence of a will delayed decision-making, increased legal costs, and forced advisers and family members to navigate complex structures without direction.

Legal Fallout and Practical Consequences

The division of assets under Western Australian law may appear straightforward, but in reality it triggered:

• Prolonged legal disputes and administrative delays.

• Exposure to increased tax liabilities (including capital gains and stamp duty).

• Uncertainty over business succession and continuity.

• Potential vulnerability to family conflict and unintended distributions.

• Key Lessons for Advisers and Clients

  
  

  1. Sign a valid will: Avoids default intestacy rules and ensures wishes are respected

  2. Do not rely on intestacy laws: "One-size-fits-all” can create family disputes and tax inefficiencies

  3. Review plans regularly: Keeps estate planning aligned with evolving business and family circumstances

  4. Plan for business continuity: Prevents loss of control and confusion in complex commercial structures

  
  

  Even the Most Sophisticated Need Simple Documents

  Holmes à Court was a lawyer and corporate titan, yet failed to sign a valid will. Success in business does not replace the need for foundational estate planning.

  Intestacy Is No Substitute for Planning

  Default intestacy laws rarely reflect personal, business, or tax considerations. Families are left vulnerable to unintended distributions, delays, and disputes.

  Review Estate Plans Regularly

  Changes in asset structure, business risk, or family circumstances should prompt a review. Holmes à Court’s empire had evolved dramatically before his death, but his estate documents had not kept pace.

  Protect Continuity of Control

  Without a will or succession plan, control of companies and trusts can fall into limbo. This is especially risky for private businesses dependent on one person’s strategic oversight.

  Why This Still Matters in Australia

  Today’s inheritances involve more than just bank accounts—they include superannuation, trusts, businesses, and digital assets. As intergenerational wealth transfers accelerate across Australia, especially among high-net-worth families, the Holmes à Court case remains a cautionary tale.

  The best time to review or create an estate plan is before it is needed. The best outcome is one where families are protected—not burdened—by their legacy.