A Grand Claim Needs More Than Being a Grandchild

Grandchildren and Family Provision Claims

Overview

The Supreme Court case of Broadus v Cradduck [2025] NSWSC 402 provides a critical lesson for grandchildren considering family provision claims in New South Wales. The Court dismissed a claim brought by an adult grandson against his late grandfather's estate. The ruling confirmed that without establishing financial dependency, a grandchild is not an "eligible person" under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) and is therefore not entitled to a share of the estate.

Facts

Walter Cradduck passed away in 2022, leaving his entire $1 million estate to his son, Peter. Peter had lived with and cared for his father for many years. Walter's will named his grandchildren, including the plaintiff, only as substitute beneficiaries in the event Peter died before him.

The plaintiff, Walter's adult grandson, filed a family provision claim. He argued that he had been dependent on his grandfather, having stayed in his home periodically and received some financial gifts. He sought a provision of $115,000 from the estate.

Issue

The central legal issue was whether the grandson was an "eligible person" under section 57(1)(e) of the Succession Act. To be eligible, a grandchild must prove they were "wholly or partly dependent" on the deceased.

Holding

The Court dismissed the claim, finding that the grandson was not an eligible person because he could not prove he was dependent on his late grandfather.

Reasoning

Justice Lindsay determined that the grandson's connection to the deceased did not meet the legal threshold for dependency. Key points from the judgment include:

• No Dependency: The financial assistance and hospitality provided by the deceased were considered "casual" and did not amount to the partial or whole dependency required by the Act. The grandson was viewed as a guest, not as a member of the household that relied on him for support.

• No Factors Warranting: Even if the grandson had been eligible, the Court found no "factors which warrant the making of the application." The judge concluded that the grandson was not a natural object of testamentary recognition, especially given the deceased's close relationship with his son, Peter.

• Deliberate Will: The will was seen as a "deliberate recalibration" of the deceased's intentions, thoughtfully made to provide for the son who had supported him.

Conclusion

The case of Broadus v Cradduck reinforces that for grandchildren's inheritance claims, simply being a grandchild is not enough. A claimant must provide clear evidence of sustained financial dependency on the deceased. Sporadic gifts or temporary accommodation are unlikely to satisfy this requirement.

BOOK AN APPOINTMENT