Legal Determination of Constructive Trust and Family Provision Following a Parent's Breach of Testamentary Contract Regarding Shared Property

Joint and Mutual Wills versus Family Provision: When a Testamentary Contract Creates a Constructive Trust, Can the Court Still Order Provision for an Adult Child, and Who Ultimately Bears the Cost?

Based on the authentic Australian judicial case Knespal v Knespal [2025] NSWSC 464 (File No 2023/150023), this article disassembles the Court’s judgment process regarding evidence and law. It transforms complex judicial reasoning into clear, understandable key point analyses, helping readers identify the core of the dispute, understand the judgment logic, make more rational litigation choices, and providing case resources for practical research to readers of all backgrounds.

Chapter 1: Case Overview and Core Disputes

Basic Information

Court of Hearing: Supreme Court of New South Wales, Equity Division (Family Provision List)

Presiding Judge: Kunc J

Cause of Action: Family provision claim under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) and a cross-claim to enforce a testamentary contract evidenced by a deed (joint and mutual wills arrangement), giving rise to constructive trust relief

Judgment Date: 15 May 2025

Core Keywords:

Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case

Keyword 2: Family provision

Keyword 3: Joint and mutual wills

Keyword 4: Testamentary contract

Keyword 5: Constructive trust

Keyword 6: Crisp type order

Background

At the centre of this case was a single Bondi unit and a family arrangement that began decades earlier. The Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant had lived in the unit for many years, including as the Deceased’s carer in later life. The estate’s only meaningful asset became the sale proceeds of that unit, held in trust after an interim administrator sold it to discharge a substantial mortgage.

Ordinarily, an adult child seeking family provision must show that the will failed to make adequate provision for proper maintenance, education, or advancement in life, assessed against the applicant’s needs and the community’s standards. However, this estate was complicated by a deed: an earlier arrangement under which the Deceased and her late spouse had bound themselves, by mutual wills, to leave the Defendant/Cross-Claimant a defined interest linked to the unit. A later will made by the Deceased departed from that earlier arrangement. That clash between an enforceable testamentary bargain and a statutory family provision claim created the case’s central legal pressure point.

(At this stage, do not assume the outcome. The dispute is best understood first by unpacking what each party asked the Court to do.)

Core Disputes and Claims

The Court was required to determine two connected questions:

1) Testamentary contract and property characterisation:
– Did the deed and mutual wills arrangement remain enforceable, such that the proceeds of the unit (or a defined share of them) were held on constructive trust for the Defendant/Cross-Claimant, rather than forming part of the estate available for family provision?

2) Family provision and burden allocation:
– If the deed was enforceable, what, if any, additional provision should be ordered for the Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant, and how should that provision be structured so as to respect the constructive trust interest?

Relief sought:

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant:
- A family provision order to secure stable accommodation and a contingency fund, despite the competing claim that the relevant property was subject to the Defendant/Cross-Claimant’s equitable entitlement.
Defendant/Cross-Claimant:
- Enforcement of the deed and the mutual wills arrangement, seeking recognition that the Defendant/Cross-Claimant was entitled to a defined share linked to the unit (and a share of residue), with corresponding declarations and orders.

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

The origin story of the dispute reads like a cautionary tale about how “family arrangements” can harden into legal obligations.

Years earlier, the unit was purchased in the name of the Defendant/Cross-Claimant, with significant involvement from the parents (including funding described in contemporaneous banking documentation as a “gift from parents”, and parental guarantees). Over time, the practical reality shifted: the parents wished to live in the unit and ultimately did so, and later the Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant moved in and remained there for decades.

To manage the transition from the Defendant/Cross-Claimant being the registered proprietor to the parents living in the unit and bearing its expenses, a deed was executed in 1988. It was not merely a casual promise. It “formalised prior verbal arrangements” and included a key bargain: the property was to be treated as belonging to the parents, they would service outgoings, and the parents would make mutual wills leaving the Defendant/Cross-Claimant “one half of the nett value” linked to the unit at the death of the survivor, while otherwise distributing the estates equally between the three children. The deed also contained a restraint: the parents agreed not to alter those wills without the Defendant/Cross-Claimant’s written consent.

Decisive moments leading to litigation included:

A later attempt (in 1999) to propose a new deed and a different set of arrangements, including an option structure that would have favoured the Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s ability to acquire the unit.
The fact that these proposed new documents were never executed, with the evidence indicating that the Defendant/Cross-Claimant did not consent and the proposal was not pursued.
The making of a later will by the Deceased in 2014 that departed from the 1988 mutual will arrangement, including a life-style right to occupy for the Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant and a different division of ultimate sale proceeds.
A later mortgage over the unit, taken out without the Defendant/Cross-Claimant’s prior knowledge, and the eventual sale of the unit by an interim administrator in 2024–2025 to resolve a lender’s claim.

By the time proceedings commenced, the dispute had crystallised into a direct legal contest: was the estate truly “free” to meet a family provision claim, or was a large part of the relevant property already committed—by binding agreement and equity—to the Defendant/Cross-Claimant?

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s Main Evidence and Arguments

1) The later will and the Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s long-term occupation:
– The later will granted the Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant a right to use and enjoy the property during life (subject to specified terminating events), and contemplated an ultimate division of sale proceeds.
– The Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s lived reality—long-term residence, and later caring responsibilities—was pressed as a central factual foundation for the claim of inadequate provision and the need for secure housing.

2) Attack on the enforceability / continuing operation of the deed:
– The Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant advanced defences seeking to avoid the deed’s effect, including (as ultimately framed) an argument that the deed had been terminated earlier by alleged repudiation and acceptance.
– A key legal submission was that conduct around the 1999 proposed deed and will, and later property transfers, amounted to conduct inconsistent with being bound by the 1988 deed.

3) Practical needs-based case:
– The family provision case was presented as focused on accommodation security and a contingency buffer, rather than opportunistic “windfall” distribution.

Defendant/Cross-Claimant’s Main Evidence and Arguments

1) The 1988 deed and the mutual wills:
– The deed’s text (including clauses deeming ownership, regulating transfers, and requiring mutual wills and consent for changes) formed the centrepiece of the cross-claim.
– The mutual will provisions aligned with the deed’s bargain: the Defendant/Cross-Claimant was to receive the relevant half share linked to the unit, plus an equal share in the residue alongside siblings.

2) Evidence the deed was treated as operative long after 1988:
– The 1999 proposal was characterised not as abandonment of the 1988 deed, but as an attempt to seek consent for a new arrangement.
– Later dealings with revenue authorities, including stamp duty treatment of the deed and the 2007 settlement correspondence, were relied upon as objective indicators that the deed remained the organising framework.

3) Resistance to a termination / repudiation analysis:
– The Defendant/Cross-Claimant argued that the alleged repudiation in 1999 was not repudiatory conduct at all, and that, in any event, later transfers did not amount to acceptance of any alleged repudiation.

Core Dispute Points

Was the 1999 conduct repudiatory, and if so, was it accepted such that the deed terminated?
If the deed remained on foot, what property formed part of the “estate” for family provision purposes, and what portion was held on constructive trust for the Defendant/Cross-Claimant?
How could the Court craft a family provision order that recognised a constructive trust interest yet still addressed the Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s accommodation needs?

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

Affidavits did more than list facts; they framed the moral narrative in legally actionable form.

The Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s affidavit strategy (as reflected in the Court’s description of the evidence) centred on:

Lived history: long-term occupation of the unit, and the caregiving period.
Need: why the Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant required stability of housing and a financial buffer.
Resistance to the deed: presenting the deed as either superseded, abandoned, or effectively terminated by later events.

The Defendant/Cross-Claimant’s affidavit strategy focused on:

A contract story: the 1988 bargain, why it was made, and the assurance the Defendant/Cross-Claimant sought in exchange for allowing the parents to treat the unit as theirs.
Objective anchors: contemporaneous written records (solicitor letters, revenue settlement documentation) supporting the proposition that the deed remained operative and recognised.
Fairness in contractual terms: the defendant’s position was that the deed already contained the family’s fairness architecture—half to the Defendant/Cross-Claimant linked to the unit, and equal division of the remainder.

Strategic procedural intent behind directions:

The Court’s management approach reflected an insistence that the parties identify the real contest. The estate’s interim administrator filed a submitting appearance so the Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant and Defendant/Cross-Claimant could contest the substantive issues directly, rather than burden the administrator with adversarial costs. This is a classic estate litigation discipline: the Court prefers the personal claimants to fight out the contested questions, and then to address costs consequences consistently with that reality.

Chapter 5: Court Orders

Prior to the final hearing, the Court’s procedural management included:

Appointment of an interim administrator with powers to call in estate assets, sell the property to discharge the lender’s mortgage, hold funds in interest-bearing accounts, and facilitate the family provision proceedings.
Directions that the interim administrator file a submitting appearance so that the Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant and Defendant/Cross-Claimant contested the true dispute.
Orders for vacant possession upon settlement of sale (without prejudice to the Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s asserted entitlements), and an interim distribution to the Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant.
The Court foreshadowed later cost submissions, signalling that this was not a routine “estate pays everyone” matter if, in substance, it was vigorously contested inter partes litigation.

Chapter 6: Hearing Scene: Ultimate Showdown of Evidence and Logic

The hearing had the shape of two overlapping trials: a contract and equity contest about the deed, and a statutory provision contest about adequate provision.

Process Reconstruction: Live Restoration

The cross-examinations were not a credibility demolition exercise. The Court recorded that neither party directly attacked the other’s honesty, and that both witnesses were doing their best to tell the truth according to recollection. The “pressure” of cross-examination instead worked like a sieve: it tested whether the parties’ interpretations of old family arrangements could survive the objective written record and the logic of the timeline.

One of the key forensic themes was the 1999 attempt to alter arrangements. The Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s case needed that episode to function as a pivot point: repudiation and termination. The Defendant/Cross-Claimant’s case needed it to function as something narrower: a request for consent that did not succeed, leaving the original bargain intact.

The Defendant/Cross-Claimant’s evidence under cross-examination included a point of practical human realism: an objection can be expressed briefly, and still be a refusal. The Court accepted evidence to the effect that the Defendant/Cross-Claimant regarded the proposed change as unfair and did not agree, and that the proposal was not pursued thereafter.

Core Evidence Confrontation

The most decisive confrontation was between:

The deed’s text (especially the consent-to-change requirement and the mutual wills obligation), and
The later will’s terms, which departed from that bargain, and the Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s attempt to characterise earlier conduct as terminating the deed before that later will was made.

The Court treated objective documents as stabilisers in a dispute shaped by memory:

Solicitor correspondence in 1999 strongly suggested that the Deceased was to discuss the proposed new deed with the Defendant/Cross-Claimant to ensure it was satisfactory to him, which aligned with the deed’s requirement for consent to change.
Revenue settlement documentation in 2007 explicitly treated the 1988 deed as a document to be stamped and used as the basis for duty assessment, reinforcing that the deed remained recognised and operative.

Judicial Reasoning: How Facts Drove the Legal Conclusions

The Court’s reasoning on repudiation and termination was anchored in orthodox contract doctrine: repudiation is assessed objectively, and mere proposal of a new arrangement (seeking consent) will rarely be repudiatory.

“The test as to what constitutes repudiatory conduct is whether ‘the conduct of one party was such as to convey to a reasonable person, in the situation of the other party, renunciation either of the contract as a whole or as a fundamental obligation under it’.”

This was determinative because the Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s termination theory required the Court to treat the 1999 proposal as a renunciation. Once the Court applied the objective test, it concluded the proven facts supported a narrower characterisation: the Deceased was seeking consent to change, not announcing an intention to proceed regardless.

The Court also rejected the idea that later property transfers terminated the deed, identifying the lack of logical connection and the presence of a compelling alternative explanation tied to land tax issues and revenue settlement steps. In other words, the transfers were treated as consistent with the deed’s purpose rather than as an election to end it.

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

The Court ultimately determined:

The property interest linked to the unit, as between the parties, was held on constructive trust in a manner that gave the Defendant/Cross-Claimant the defined share under the 1988 mutual will structure.
A family provision order should nonetheless be made to provide the Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant with secure accommodation and a contingency fund, but structured so that the burden of that additional provision was borne by the Defendant/Cross-Claimant and secured by a charge over what the Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant purchased.

In practical outcome terms, the Court’s orders had a dual architecture:

1) Equity / contract enforcement:
– The Defendant/Cross-Claimant’s entitlement to half the net sale proceeds linked to the unit and a share of the residue was recognised.

2) Family provision:
– Additional provision was made so the Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant could purchase a two-bedroom unit up to a specified total cost (including transactional costs) of AUD $1,250,000, and a contingency fund of AUD $150,000.
– That additional provision was borne by the Defendant/Cross-Claimant and secured by a charge in favour of the Defendant/Cross-Claimant over the property the Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant purchased (including any subsequent property).

Chapter 8: In-depth Analysis of the Judgment: How Law and Evidence Lay the Foundation for Victory

Special Analysis

This case is jurisprudentially valuable because it illustrates a controlled collision between:

A statutory family provision jurisdiction designed to correct inadequate testamentary provision, and
An equitable proprietary outcome produced by a testamentary contract (joint and mutual wills), giving rise to a constructive trust.

The Court’s approach demonstrates that “what is in the estate” is not merely an administrative question; it is the gateway issue that determines the real field of battle. If equity says a portion is held for someone else, the family provision claim does not automatically dissolve—but the Court must fashion orders that respect property rights while still achieving the statute’s protective purpose.

The decision is also notable for its “Crisp type” structure: the successful family provision outcome was not simply paid out of the free residue in the ordinary way. Instead, the Court crafted a mechanism where provision was borne by, and secured against, the interest of the party whose equitable entitlement otherwise dominated the asset pool. That is an advanced remedial design: the Court does not pretend the trust property is “free”; it engineers a fair, enforceable accommodation.

Judgment Points

1) Victory Point 1: Start with property characterisation—family provision begins only after the estate is identified

Five-Link Structure:
– Statutory Provisions: Succession Act 2006 (NSW) (family provision framework; estate concept and jurisdictional gateway)
– Evidence Chain: deed text; mutual will terms; later will inconsistency; objective records indicating the deed remained operative
– Judicial Original Quotation:

“It is axiomatic in family provision claims that in considering both the adequacy of provision and whose interests in the estate are to bear the burden of any additional provision, the Court must begin its analysis by determining what comprises the estate, who has an interest in the estate and in what proportion or as to what asset.”
– Losing Party’s Reasons for Failure: The Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s case could not succeed on a “needs-first” model alone. The Court insisted on a property-first methodology.

Why determinative:
If the Court had skipped this gateway and treated all sale proceeds as estate property, it would have undermined the equitable bargain reflected in the deed and mutual wills. The Court’s insistence on sequence protected doctrinal coherence: equity defines proprietary rights; the family provision discretion then operates within that landscape.

2) Victory Point 2: The deed operated as a binding testamentary contract, not a moral promise

Five-Link Structure:
– Statutory Provisions: Succession Act 2006 (NSW) operates against the background of property rights; Probate and Administration Act 1898 (NSW) informs administration structure; equity principles govern constructive trust outcomes
– Evidence Chain: the deed’s language (“deemed to be owned”; obligation to make fresh wills; restraint on altering wills without consent)
– Judicial Original Quotation:

“The Parents jointly and severally covenant and agree with the Son that they will make fresh wills … and … shall refrain from making any alteration to such wills without the prior written consent of the Son.”
– Losing Party’s Reasons for Failure: Attempting to treat the deed as superseded by later events failed because the deed contained a clear consent mechanism and a clear bargain structure.

Why determinative:
The deed did the heavy legal work. It created enforceable obligations and a predictable distribution structure. Once the Court accepted its continuing effect, the later will could not, by unilateral revocation, erase the Defendant/Cross-Claimant’s entitlement.

3) Victory Point 3: Repudiation is assessed objectively; proposals for consent are rarely repudiatory

Five-Link Structure:
– Statutory Provisions: Contract principles applied within equitable proceedings
– Evidence Chain: solicitor letters emphasising satisfaction of all parties; evidence the proposed 1999 deed and will were never implemented; evidence the proposal was not pursued after refusal
– Judicial Original Quotation:

“If one party to a contract proposes a different arrangement for the consent of the other party without more, that could rarely, if ever, be repudiatory conduct.”
– Losing Party’s Reasons for Failure: The Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s termination theory required the Court to treat an unexecuted proposal as renunciation. The objective test rejected that characterisation.

Why determinative:
In practical terms, families often “talk about changes” without ever implementing them. The Court’s approach prevents casual negotiations from accidentally destroying binding bargains unless the evidence shows a clear intention to abandon.

4) Victory Point 4: Time gaps and alternative explanations matter—acceptance of repudiation must be coherent

Five-Link Structure:
– Statutory Provisions: Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) arguments were only potentially engaged if a breach in 1999 triggered a cause of action; the Court rejected the premise, making limitation analysis unnecessary
– Evidence Chain: the eight-year gap between the alleged repudiation and the 2007 transfers; the land tax dispute and settlement steps referencing the 1988 deed
– Judicial Original Quotation:

“The passage of eight years is sufficient to justify [the conclusion] in the absence of any other evidence… [and] there is a clear and compelling explanation for the complete transfer in the context of the land tax issue…”
– Losing Party’s Reasons for Failure: The Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s attempt to treat the 2007 transfers as acceptance of repudiation was too remote and inconsistent with the objective record.

Why determinative:
The law of repudiation is not a creative storytelling exercise. The Court demanded a tight causal chain: repudiation must be proven; acceptance must be proven; and the acceptance must make sense in time and context.

5) Victory Point 5: Credit findings were not used as a shortcut; the objective record controlled

Five-Link Structure:
– Statutory Provisions: Evidence evaluation principles (weight and reliability), applied in civil proceedings
– Evidence Chain: the Court accepted both principal witnesses as trying to tell the truth; it placed emphasis on contemporaneous written records and the objective course of events
– Judicial Original Quotation:

“The Court accepts [the Defendant/Cross-Claimant’s] evidence … because [it is] consistent with the contemporaneous, written record … and the objective course of events.”
– Losing Party’s Reasons for Failure: The Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant could not undermine the deed’s continuing effect merely by pointing to inadequacies of recollection across decades.

Why determinative:
When decades are involved, memory can blur. Courts often prefer documents because they freeze time. Here, the written record prevented either party from rewriting history.

6) Victory Point 6: The Court separated ‘availability’ from ‘justice’—a trust interest can coexist with provision, but the remedy must be structured

Five-Link Structure:
– Statutory Provisions: Succession Act 2006 (NSW) (family provision discretion and adequacy), interacting with equity (constructive trust)
– Evidence Chain: the estate consisted largely of sale proceeds; the Defendant/Cross-Claimant’s equitable entitlement; the Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s housing need
– Judicial Original Quotation:

“Helane is to receive additional provision … [for purchase] … and for a contingency fund … which additional provision will be borne by [the Defendant/Cross-Claimant] and secured … in favour of [the Defendant/Cross-Claimant] over whatever property [the Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant] purchases (including any subsequent property).”
– Losing Party’s Reasons for Failure: Any approach that treated the trust property as fully available would injure equity; any approach that treated the trust as untouchable would risk leaving the family provision jurisdiction hollow. The Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s case succeeded only by accepting a remedial structure that respected the Defendant/Cross-Claimant’s proprietary position.

Why determinative:
This is the case’s most practically useful lesson: courts can craft orders that achieve provision without pretending property rights do not exist. Security mechanisms (charges) can translate fairness into enforceable outcomes.

7) Victory Point 7: The “Crisp type” logic—burden allocation can be engineered to preserve proprietary entitlements

Five-Link Structure:
– Statutory Provisions: Succession Act 2006 (NSW) (orders and burden), equity remedial principles
– Evidence Chain: the constructive trust component; the limited residue; the Court’s concern about who should ultimately bear provision and costs
– Judicial Original Quotation:

“Property held on constructive trust … Crisp type order where provision borne by property subject to constructive trust.”
– Losing Party’s Reasons for Failure: The Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant could not insist that the estate at large bear the burden in the ordinary way because that would indirectly shift costs and provision onto parties who were not properly the source of the contested proprietary benefit.

Why determinative:
The Court’s design preserved the Defendant/Cross-Claimant’s core bargain (equitable entitlement) while requiring that the provision ordered be economically accounted for—secured back to the party who bore it.

8) Victory Point 8: Procedural realism—submitting appearances and costs warnings reflect how courts treat “real fights”

Five-Link Structure:
– Statutory Provisions: Court’s procedural powers; costs discretion; estate administration provisions
– Evidence Chain: interim administrator’s submitting appearance; the judge’s expressed concern about whether this should be treated as inter partes litigation rather than an estate matter
– Judicial Original Quotation:

“There seems to me to be a real question as to whether the estate should bear the costs of the proceedings of either party…”
– Losing Party’s Reasons for Failure: Parties in estate litigation who choose to litigate like ordinary civil adversaries must anticipate ordinary civil costs risks. It is not safe to assume “the estate will pay”.

Why determinative:
This shapes litigation strategy. It discourages parties from running weak points in the hope the estate will carry the financial consequences.

Legal Basis

Key statutory references and legal frameworks engaged in resolving evidentiary contradictions and the outcome included:

Succession Act 2006 (NSW):
- The statutory basis for family provision orders and the Court’s obligation to determine what property is relevant to provision, and how burdens are allocated.
Probate and Administration Act 1898 (NSW):
- Relevant to the administration framework and appointments facilitating the litigation.
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW):
- Raised defensively in relation to the cross-claim, but ultimately not determinative because the Court rejected the premise required to engage the limitation analysis.
Equity and contract law principles:
- Repudiation and termination doctrine (objective test).
- Constructive trust as a remedy to enforce joint and mutual wills / testamentary contract obligations.

Evidence Chain

The evidentiary chain that most strongly supported the ultimate structure of orders was:

1) The 1988 deed’s operative clauses:
– Deeming the unit to be owned by the parents.
– Requiring mutual wills that give the Defendant/Cross-Claimant the defined half interest.
– Restraining alteration of wills without written consent.
– Regulating transfers to facilitate sale and acquisition of replacement residence if needed.

2) Mutual wills consistent with the deed:
– Aligning the testamentary distribution to the contractual bargain.

3) 1999 solicitor correspondence:
– Showing the proposed changes were to be discussed to ensure they were satisfactory to the Defendant/Cross-Claimant, consistent with the consent-to-change requirement.

4) Absence of implementation of the proposed 1999 deed and will:
– Supporting the Court’s finding that the change was not pursued after refusal.

5) 2007 revenue settlement documentation:
– Treating the 1988 deed as operative, stamped, and used as the basis for duty assessment.

6) The 2014 will:
– Inconsistent with the 1988 mutual will arrangement, constituting a breach if the deed remained on foot.

7) Sale proceeds and estate reality:
– The estate’s substance was the sale proceeds held in trust, making property characterisation decisive.

Judicial Original Quotation

The Court’s reasoning on repudiation (as a legal gateway to termination) is captured in the orthodox objective test:

“The test as to what constitutes repudiatory conduct is whether ‘the conduct of one party was such as to convey to a reasonable person, in the situation of the other party, renunciation either of the contract as a whole or as a fundamental obligation under it’.”

This statement was determinative because it disciplined the Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s termination argument. Without proof of objective renunciation and coherent acceptance, the deed remained operative.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure

The Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s primary vulnerability was not a lack of need. It was a legal sequencing problem.

The Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant attempted to enlarge the “estate” by arguing the deed had ended earlier. That required a legally strict chain: repudiation in 1999, acceptance, termination, and then limitation consequences.
The Court found the proven facts aligned with a different characterisation: a request for consent to change that failed, leaving the deed intact.
The later transfers did not logically evidence acceptance of repudiation; the objective record showed a different, compelling explanation tied to land tax and revenue dealings.
Once the deed remained on foot, the Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant could not treat the entire sale proceeds as free for family provision. The Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s success therefore depended on remedial flexibility: obtaining provision through a structure that respected the Defendant/Cross-Claimant’s equitable entitlement.

Implications

1) If your family has “an arrangement”, treat it as legally dangerous until proven otherwise. A signed deed with mutual wills language can create enforceable obligations that survive decades and override later changes in intention.

2) In estate disputes, the first real question is often not “who needs what”, but “what property is actually available”. If equity says someone already owns a beneficial interest, the family provision claim must adapt.

3) If you are negotiating changes to a binding arrangement, do not assume that drafting documents changes the law. Unless executed and clearly implemented, proposals may prove nothing more than an attempted renegotiation.

4) If you rely on “I didn’t know” or “we never talked about it again”, be cautious. Courts often prefer contemporaneous written documents and objective events over recollection. Keep records.

5) Litigation choices have costs consequences. If you run an estate matter like an ordinary civil contest, the Court may treat it that way. That risk can shape whether settlement is the smarter, safer path.

Q&A Session

Q1: If a will is “the last will”, how can an older arrangement still win?
A1: A will can be revoked, but a binding deed can impose contractual obligations about what the will must contain. Equity can enforce that bargain through a constructive trust, meaning certain property is treated as belonging beneficially to the contractual beneficiary despite the later will.

Q2: Does a constructive trust mean family provision claims are pointless?
A2: No. The family provision jurisdiction can still operate, but the Court must respect proprietary entitlements. The practical result is often a carefully structured order—sometimes secured by a charge—so provision is delivered without pretending the trust property is free.

Q3: What is the practical lesson for families who want to “keep things fair”?
A3: If fairness is to be durable, it must be documented clearly and updated lawfully. If fairness changes over time, changes must be made consistently with any consent requirements, and properly executed. Otherwise, old bargains can reassert themselves at the worst possible moment—after death, when litigation is the only forum left.

Appendix: Reference for Comparable Case Judgments and Practical Guidelines

Chapter 9: Practical Positioning of This Case

1. Practical Positioning of This Case

Case Subtype: Succession Law – Family Provision Claim intersecting with Joint and Mutual Wills (Testamentary Contract) and Constructive Trust

Judgment Nature Definition: Final Judgment (principal judgment resolving the cross-claim and the family provision claim)

2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements

This case belongs to Category ⑥ Wills, Estates and Succession Law.

Core Test (Validity):
– Did the testator have testamentary capacity at the time of execution?
– Was there any undue influence or duress?

Core Test (Family Provision Claims):
– Has the deceased failed to make adequate provision for the proper maintenance, education, or advancement in life of the applicant?
– Consideration commonly includes:
– The applicant’s financial position and earning capacity
– The applicant’s health and age
– The applicant’s accommodation needs
– The nature and duration of the relationship with the deceased
– Competing claims on the estate
– The size and nature of the estate
– The deceased’s moral obligations and community standards

######Important operational note drawn from the structure of this case:
– Before applying the “adequate provision” test, it is often necessary to identify what property is truly in the estate and what property may be subject to equitable interests (such as constructive trusts arising from testamentary contracts). That gateway issue can be decisive in determining the real distributable pool.

3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims

In matters like this—succession disputes combined with contractual bargains and family provision—the strategic “counter-attack” pathways often sit in equity.

######Promissory / Proprietary Estoppel:
– Did the other party make a clear and unequivocal promise or representation about future property distribution?
– Did another person act in detrimental reliance on that promise (for example, by surrendering opportunities, providing long-term care, or investing labour or funds into property)?
– Would it be unconscionable for the promisor (or their estate) to depart from the promise?

######Relatively high risk warning:
– Estoppel arguments tend to require a tight evidentiary chain: clarity of representation, reliance, detriment, and unconscionability. Where the arrangement is reduced to a written deed, courts often prefer to resolve disputes through construction and enforcement of the deed rather than broad estoppel concepts.

######Unjust Enrichment / Constructive Trust:
– Has a party received a benefit (money, labour, security, accommodation value) at another’s expense?
– Is it against conscience for that party to retain the benefit without accounting?
– If a testamentary contract exists (joint and mutual wills), equity may impose a constructive trust to prevent the survivor from defeating the bargain by making an inconsistent will.

######Practical application caution:
– Constructive trust claims tend to be determined by the precise terms of the bargain and the objective conduct showing continuing recognition of that bargain. Courts are cautious about imposing constructive trusts where the arrangement is vague.

######Procedural Fairness (where administration steps are contested):
– Even in succession matters, procedural fairness principles can arise in relation to how decisions are made by administrators or trustees (for example, sale processes, accounting, information provision). Challenges tend to succeed only where there is a real departure from duties or fairness, not merely dissatisfaction with outcomes.

4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances

######Regular Thresholds:
– Family provision claims in NSW are governed by strict eligibility categories and time limits under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW).
– Practical threshold: the applicant must show inadequate provision for proper maintenance, education, or advancement in life, assessed in the context of the estate and competing claims.
– Where there is a competing equitable entitlement (constructive trust), a practical “hard threshold” is proving what property is actually available.

######Exceptional Channels (Crucial):
– If the estate appears small due to trusts or contractual bargains, applicants should not automatically abandon a claim. Courts may craft structured relief, including:
– Orders borne by a particular beneficiary rather than the estate generally
– Security mechanisms such as charges over substitute property
– Staged provision (housing plus contingency rather than lump-sum distribution)

######Suggestion:
– Do not abandon a potential claim simply because the “estate” appears constrained. Carefully assess whether equity has reduced the available pool and whether the Court might still fashion orders to meet genuine needs without undermining proprietary rights.

5. Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation

######Citation Angle:
– This case is suitable to cite in submissions involving:
– Interaction between family provision claims and property held on constructive trust
– Enforcement of testamentary contracts evidenced by joint and mutual wills arrangements
– Repudiation arguments where a party sought consent to change an arrangement but did not implement the change
– Remedial structuring of provision orders that respect equitable entitlements (Crisp type orders)

######Citation Method:
– As Positive Support:
– Where your matter involves a clear deed and mutual wills arrangement, and a later inconsistent will, cite this authority to support the proposition that equity may enforce the bargain through constructive trust and limit what is available for distribution.

As a Distinguishing Reference:
- If the opposing party cites this case, emphasise differences such as:
- Lack of a clear written deed
- Absence of a consent-to-change mechanism
- Evidence that a proposed new arrangement was actually executed and implemented
- Evidence that the bargain was released, waived, or replaced

Anonymisation Rule:
– In commentary and professional writing, use procedural titles (Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant; Defendant/Cross-Claimant) and avoid naming parties where anonymisation is required by the publication context.

Conclusion

This case teaches a disciplined lesson: in succession disputes, fairness is not judged in the air—it is judged inside a legal structure made of contracts, equity, and statute. When a family’s bargain is written into a deed and mutual wills, equity can hold the line by imposing a constructive trust, but the family provision jurisdiction can still work through carefully engineered orders that respect property rights while meeting genuine need.

Everyone needs to understand the law and see the world through the lens of law. The in-depth analysis of this authentic judgment is intended to help everyone gradually establish a new legal mindset: True self-protection stems from the early understanding and mastery of legal rules.

Disclaimer

This article is based on the study and analysis of the public judgment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Knespal v Knespal [2025] NSWSC 464), aimed at promoting legal research and public understanding. The citation of relevant judgment content is limited to the scope of fair dealing for the purposes of legal research, comment, and information sharing.

The analysis, structural arrangement, and expression of views contained in this article are the original content of the author, and the copyright belongs to the author and this platform. This article does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be regarded as legal advice for any specific situation.

Original Case File:

👉 Can’t see the full document?
Click here to download the original judgment document.