Can A Sibling Contest a Will In NSW? Working For the Family Business Paid Off Just Fifty Years Too Late
A 2025 Supreme Court decision shows when a brother or sister can ask for a share of an estate, even when the Will leaves them nothing.
Yes, a sibling can contest a Will in New South Wales. Not simply because they are a brother or sister, but because of how they lived. A sibling who once shared a household with the person who died, and depended on them, can ask the Court for a share of the estate. This is called a family provision claim, and there is a time limit on it.
Can a brother or sister contest a Will
Most people believe only a husband, wife or child can contest a Will. That belief is wrong. It is also the thing family members say most often to the person they want to keep quiet.
The law in New South Wales sets out six groups of people who may ask the Court for a share of an estate. Section 57 of the Succession Act lists them. A brother or sister is not one of the six. Being related by blood is not enough on its own.
One of the six groups is wider than it looks. It covers a person who was at some point wholly or partly dependent on the person who died, and who at some point lived in the same household as them. A brother or sister often fits that description. So does a stepchild, a carer, a grandchild or a former partner.
Think of it as two locked doors. The first door asks whether you are allowed to apply at all. The second asks whether you should be given anything. Being a brother or sister does not open the first door. Years of living in the same house and depending on that person can.
The dependence does not have to last until the death. The law asks whether you were dependent at some point, and whether you lived in the same household at that point or at any other point. In the 2025 case described below, the brother had moved out 13 years before the death. He was still allowed to apply.
What a claim costs you
In estate disputes, legal costs are frequently paid out of the estate rather than out of your own pocket. That is the ordinary starting point. It is the reason a person on a low income can afford to ask the question at all.
Two things have to be said next to that. The Court decides costs, and an order that the estate pays is a discretion, not a rule. And costs paid out of the estate still reduce what everyone inherits, including you.
Costs can also move the other way. If either side turns down a reasonable settlement offer and then does worse at a hearing, the Court can order that side to pay the other side's costs at a higher rate. That is what happened in this case, and it happened to the estate. It can just as easily happen to a claimant.
Finding out whether you have a claim costs you nothing. Our first conversation is free.
How long you have
You have 12 months from the date of death to make a family provision claim in New South Wales.
The date that matters is the date of death. It is not the date you found out the person had died. It is not the date you were shown the Will. It is not the date the person handling the estate stopped answering your calls.
A sibling is more likely than a child to find out late. You may not hear about the death for weeks. You may never be sent a copy of the Will, because the person administering the estate does not have to send one to someone who is not named in it. The 12 months runs anyway.
The Court can allow a late claim. You have to ask for permission and explain the whole of the delay, and permission is not given as a matter of course.
What happened in this case
A family of eleven children. An estate worth somewhere between $45 million and $55 million. One brother left with nothing.
The family came to Australia from Lebanon, the eldest brother first, in 1965. The rest arrived in 1969 and settled in Sydney. The eldest was the only adult in the family who spoke English well, and he took control of the household.
That control went well past ordinary family help. The Court found he acted as a father figure to his younger brother. He managed the boy's schooling. He held his bank passbook, his passport and his social security payments. He decided where he lived. The younger brother stayed in the family home until he was about 45.
From 1987 until 1998 the family ran a takeaway business. The younger brother worked 10 to 12 hour days there, six and sometimes seven days a week, for about $20 a day. The eldest brother had stopped ordinary employment in 1979, did not work in the shop, and took all its takings. The Court treated that underpaid work as part of the foundation of the wealth he went on to build.
There were also property promises. In 1989 the eldest brother arranged for a property to be put in his younger brother's name, in line with a promise to their parents that each son would have a home. In 2002 the younger brother agreed to sell it, after being promised a replacement. The replacement never came. The eldest brother changed his name, sold the property that was meant to be the replacement, and his younger brother received none of the money.
Some of this was proved out of the eldest brother's own mouth. In an earlier court case involving another brother, he had given evidence on oath. He said he had raised his siblings like his children. He said he controlled the family's money. He said he had bought houses for his brothers because he had promised his father he would. The law lets a dead person's evidence from an earlier case be used in a later one, and that is what happened here.
That matters more than it sounds. In most of these cases the person who could answer the allegations has died, so the argument is about what he said and did years ago. Here the Court had his own sworn words, and it preferred them to the account the estate put forward.
By the time of the hearing the younger brother owned no property. He earned a small income, relied on Centrelink and was spending more than he earned. He had health problems that limited his ability to improve his position through work. What he needed was somewhere secure to live, near his family.
The Will left $1 million to each of the eldest brother's three daughters, smaller gifts to his wife and to another brother, and the rest to his son. The son was also the executor, meaning the person responsible for administering the estate. The younger brother received nothing.
In October 2025 the Court ordered that he receive $1,450,000 out of the estate, mainly to secure a home, and that the estate pay his legal costs.
Why the claim succeeded
Three things did the work, and they worked together rather than separately.
The shared household and the dependence. Decades of living in the family home, with an older brother managing his money, his documents and his schooling, put him through the first door. He was allowed to apply.
The unpaid work. Eleven years of long days for about $20 a day, in a business whose income someone else took, is a contribution to another person's wealth for which he was never properly paid. The Court is required to take that into account.
The broken promises. A promise of a home, made and then not kept, is not just a family grievance. Proved in the right way, it carries real weight.
The Court looked at what the family actually did, not at the labels the family used. On paper the takeaway business looked like ordinary employment. In reality it was decades of underpaid work that helped build one man's fortune.
The Court also assessed his position across his whole life, not as a snapshot of what he needed on the day of the hearing.
Why the size of the estate did not save it
A common belief is that a large estate is a strong estate. The opposite is closer to the truth.
A large estate is a reason the Court can make an order, not a reason it cannot. When there is plenty to go around, providing for one person does not leave the others short. The award here was about three per cent of the estate.
What the costs decision added
Three weeks after the main judgment, the Court dealt with costs in a separate decision. It is the most practical part of the case for anyone thinking about a claim.
Before the hearing, the brother had offered to settle for $1.2 million. The estate turned the offer down and ran the case to a hearing. The brother was then awarded $1.45 million, which was more than he had offered to accept.
The Court held that refusing that offer was unreasonable. It ordered the estate to pay the brother's legal costs at a higher rate from the day after the offer was made.
The lesson runs both ways, and you are entitled to hear both halves. An estate that refuses a reasonable offer can end up paying more. So can a claimant who refuses one. Most of these claims settle before a hearing, and there is usually a good reason for that.
What this means if you were left out
The Will is not always the last word. If you lived with the person who died and depended on them, at any stage of your life, you may be able to apply. That is true whether the estate is worth $200,000 or $50 million.
Being allowed to apply is not the same as winning. The second door is a real one. But nobody can tell you the answer without looking at how you actually lived.
What to do now
Write down the date of death. Your 12 months runs from that date.
Write down what you remember, now. Where you lived and when. What you were paid. What you were promised, by whom, and in front of whom. Memory fades, and a note made early carries more weight than one made a year later.
Keep the documents. Texts, emails, photographs, bank records, letters, and anything in the deceased's handwriting. Families empty the house and close the accounts in the first fortnight, so do this before you do anything else.
Do not delete anything. Old phone messages and social media accounts have decided cases.
Ask for a copy of the Will in writing. Certain people are entitled to see it. Keep a copy of your request.
Do not sign anything that gives up your claim, and do not accept a small payment, before you get advice. Signing a claim away is hard to undo.
Get advice early, even if you are not sure you want to claim. Finding out where you stand does not commit you to anything.
How we can help
You do not need to know whether you are allowed to apply before you call us. Working that out is our job.
The first conversation is free. We can tell you whether your relationship with the person who died puts you in one of the six groups. We can tell you what date your 12 months runs from. We can tell you what the Court will want to see. That means the years you spent in the household, the money you were not paid, and the promises made to you. If the Will leaves you nothing, we can tell you honestly whether that is likely to be corrected.
In estate disputes, legal costs are frequently paid out of the estate rather than out of your own pocket. That is a discretion of the Court. It is not automatic. Costs paid from the estate also reduce what everyone inherits, including you. There is a further risk worth knowing about. An applicant who loses can be ordered to pay the estate's costs. So can an applicant who turns down a reasonable offer and then does no better at a hearing.
Most family provision claims in New South Wales settle at a mediation. That is a meeting where both sides try to agree without a hearing. We will also tell you if we think a claim is not worth running. Being allowed to apply and having a claim worth bringing are two different things. You are entitled to hear the second answer as well as the first.
Call us on 1800 571 113. Did a brother, sister or anyone else you lived with and depended on die in the last 12 months? If so, call now rather than later. The 12 months runs from the date of death. It does not run from the day you found out what the Will said.
We also act for executors, and for people named in a Will, who are defending claims. We run a conflict check before we advise anyone. Please call us rather than sending the details of your matter through the website.
Disclaimer
This article is general information about the law of New South Wales as at 16 September 2026. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create a solicitor and client relationship with Dormer Stanhope. It does not take your circumstances into account, and the law in other States and Territories differs. The law also changes. If you lived with someone who has died, or depended on them, and their Will leaves you with nothing, speak to a solicitor about your own position.
