When Grandchildren Can Inherit: A Deep Dive into Angius v Angius [2025] NSWCA 113 – More Than Just a Will!

Forget dusty legal tomes – the recent decision of Angius v Angius [2025] NSWCA 113 from the New South Wales Court of Appeal is a real-life family drama with a multi-million dollar twist! This isn't just another dry legal ruling; it's a powerful reminder that sometimes, even the most carefully crafted will can be challenged, especially when a grandchild's future hangs in the balance.
Imagine this: a vast estate, almost $30 million, left entirely to one daughter. Sounds straightforward, right? Not so fast. Enter Natalie Angius, the granddaughter, who dared to ask a crucial question: "What about me?" And in a move that's shaking up succession law, the courts said, "She has a point!"
The Angius Saga: A Battle for Inheritance
At the heart of this captivating case was the considerable fortune of Giovanni (John) Angius. His final will was clear: every cent to his daughter, Jenny. No mention of Natalie. But Natalie, facing the challenges of multiple sclerosis, wasn't content to be overlooked. She launched a family provision claim, arguing that despite the will, her grandfather had a moral duty to provide for her.
The initial judge agreed, awarding Natalie a staggering $2.55 million. Jenny, understandably, appealed. But the NSW Court of Appeal, in a decision that resonated with fairness and compassion, upheld the original ruling.
Unpacking the Court's Decision: Beyond the Black and White
So, what made Natalie's claim so compelling? It wasn't just about being a grandchild. The Court's reasoning delved into the nuanced realities of their relationship and Natalie's life:
- The Unseen Threads of Dependency: This wasn't a case of basic needs. The Court recognised that John's financial support to Natalie, particularly after her MS diagnosis, was significant and went beyond mere gestures of affection. It gradually evolved to replace her income, effectively making her partially dependent on him. This expanded interpretation of "dependency" is a game-changer, showing that support needn't be for "survival" to count.
- More Than Just Money: "Factors Warranting" Intervention: It wasn't solely about the financial lifeline. The Court looked at the entire picture: the deep bond between grandfather and granddaughter, Natalie's vulnerability due to her chronic illness, and even John's earlier intentions, which had indicated he did intend to provide for her. This demonstrates that a court can override a testator's final will if there's a strong moral obligation to provide for a claimant.
- The Weight of an "Extremely Large" Estate: Let's be frank, $2.55 million is a substantial sum. But in the context of an almost $30 million estate, the Court deemed it entirely appropriate. This signals that in cases of immense wealth, courts are more likely to ensure that those with a genuine claim and demonstrable need are adequately provided for.
What Does This Mean for Your Family and Your Will?
Angius v Angius isn't just a legal precedent; it's a cautionary tale and a powerful lesson for anyone planning their estate or facing a similar family dilemma:
- Grandchildren Are No Longer "Outsiders": If you thought your will was ironclad against claims from grandchildren, think again. This case proves that with sufficient evidence of dependency and compelling circumstances, they can successfully challenge a will.
- Dependency Isn't Just About Rent and Groceries: The definition of "dependency" has broadened. If you're providing significant financial support, even for what might seem like "extras" or during difficult times, it could be seen as creating a moral obligation.
- Your "Final Word" Might Not Be the Final Word: While a will reflects your wishes, the courts retain the power to adjust those wishes if they believe there's a moral duty to provide for someone who has been overlooked, especially in very large estates.
- The Power of Proactive Planning: This case shouts out the importance of comprehensive estate planning. Don't just tick boxes. Have candid conversations with your loved ones, consider all potential claimants, and document your decisions clearly, especially if you're intentionally excluding someone who might have a perceived claim. A well-reasoned explanation in your will can make all the difference.
Angius v Angius [2025] NSWCA 113 is more than a legal case; it's a human story about family, illness, and the enduring quest for fairness. It serves as a stark reminder that in the eyes of the law, sometimes, the bonds of family can transcend the written word, even in the most significant of estates.








