An adult child's financial needs attributable to well-intentioned but improvident investment decisions cannot be treated as a disqualifying factor in family provision claims; such conduct is merely one factor in the evaluative mix. Claims for family provision orders to build up superannuation entitlements should ordinarily have a solid evidentiary foundation, particularly in finely balanced cases. The prospect of a legacy under a surviving spouse's non-binding mirror will is a relevant but not determinative factor in the s 59(1)(c) assessment.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 26 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 26 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.