[2026] SASC 82

Applicant: LINDA MARIE PATERSON In Person Other: MS P PERRY AS MCKENZIE FRIEND First to Fourth Respondents: GRAEME WILLIAM PATERSON AND IAN BARRY PATERSON (AS EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF BARRY WILLIAM PATERSON), GRAEME WILLIAM PATERSON AND IAN BARRY PATERSON (IN THEIR PERSONAL CAPACITIES) Counsel: MR A LAZAREVICH - Solicitor: MOLONEY & PARTNERS Fifth Respondent: PETER MOLONEY, MARTIN HYNES AND ALEX LAZAREVICH (ON BEHALF OF MOLONEY & PARTNERS) No Attendance Sixth Respondent: THE HON MARK DREYFUS KC MP, ATTORNEY-GENERAL (AS CHIEF LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE ON BEHALF OF THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT) No Attendance Seventh Respondent: THE HON KYAM MAHER MLC, ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (AS CHIEF LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE ON BEHALF OF THE SOUTH AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT) No Attendance Hearing Date/s: 01/09/2025 to 04/09/2025 File No/s: CIV-22-013736 B SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (Civil: Application) DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court in which it was generated. In the Estate of PATERSON (DECEASED) PATERSON v PATERSON & ORS [2026] SASC 82 Judgment of the Honourable Chief Justice Kourakis 29 May 2026 SUCCESSION - FAMILY PROVISION - REQUIREMENT FOR ADEQUATE AND PROPER MAINTENANCE - WHETHER APPLICANT LEFT WITH INSUFFICIENT PROVISION SUCCESSION - FAMILY PROVISION - PROCEDURE - ORDERS AND OTHER PROCEDURAL MATTERS - COSTS This is an application for provision out of a deceased estate pursuant to the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act 1972 (SA) (‘the Act’). The applicant, the daughter of the deceased, applied for provision from the deceased’s estate for maintenance, education, and advancement in life pursuant to s 7 of the Act. The respondents contend that adequate provision has been made to the applicant. Held: 1. Further provision should be made for the applicant’s proper maintenance and advancement in life pursuant to s 7 of the Act. 2. A testator’s will only be disturbed to the extent necessary, therefore, a provision of $150,000 from the residuary estate will be awarded to the applicant. Inheritance (Family Provision) Act 1972 s 7; Succession Act 2023 (SA), referred to. -- 1 of 31 -- Singer v Berghouse (1994) 181 CLR 201; Goodman v Windeyer (1980) 144 CLR 490; Parker v Australian Executor Trustees Ltd [2016] SASC 64; McCosker v McCosker (1957) 97 CLR 566; Bosch v Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd [1938] AC 463; Bowyer v Wood (2007) 99 SASR 190; Hunter v Hunter (1987) 8 NSWLR 573; Bramwell v Bramwell (2023) 143 SASR 496; Pontifical Society for the Propagation of the Faith v Scales (1962) 107 CLR 9; Taylor v Farrugia [2009] NSWSC 801; Megerditchian v Khatchadourian [2020] NSWCA 229; Tiburzi v Butler [2017] SASCFC 89; White v Barron (1980) 144 CLR 431, considered. -- 2 of 31 -- In the Estate of PATERSON (DECEASED) PATERSON v PATERSON & ORS [2026] SASC 82 Civil: Application KOURAKIS CJ. 1 This is an application for provision out of the estate of Barry William Paterson (the deceased) pursuant to the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act 1972 (SA) (the Act).1 The applicant, Ms Linda Paterson, who is the daughter of the deceased, applies for provision from the deceased’s estate for maintenance, education, and advancement in life pursuant to s 7 of the Act. Section 7 of the Act provides: (1) Where— (a) a person has died domiciled in the State or owning real or personal property in the State; and (b) by reason of his testamentary dispositions or the operation of the laws of intestacy or both, a person entitled to claim the benefit of this Act is left without adequate provision for his proper maintenance, education or advancement in life, the Court may in its discretion, upon application by or on behalf of a person so entitled, order that such provision as the Court thinks fit be made out of the estate of the deceased person for the maintenance, education or advancement of the person so entitled. … (3) The Court may refuse to make an order in favour of any person on the ground that his character or conduct is such as, in the opinion of the Court, to disentitle him to the benefit of this Act, or for any other reason that the Court thinks sufficient. (4) The Court may, in making any order under this Act, impose such conditions, restrictions and limitations as it thinks fit. … (6) In making the order the Court may, if it thinks fit, order that the provision shall consist of a lump sum or periodic or other payments or a lump sum and periodic or other payments. 2 The parties agreed that the authority binding on me requires that the claim be determined pursuant to s 7 of the Act, and not the provisions of the Succession Act 2023 (SA), as probate was granted under the superseded Act. Linda Paterson is eligible to apply pursuant to s 6(c) of the Act, as a child of the deceased. 1 FDN 1. The Act has now been repealed and claims made after 1 January 2025 are governed by Part 6 of the Succession Act 2023 (SA). -- 3 of 31 -- [2026] SASC 82 Kourakis CJ 2 3 The respondents, Graeme William Paterson and Ian Barry Paterson, who are the sons of the deceased and brothers of Linda Paterson, submit that adequate provision has been made. 4 They are respondents both as the executors of the estate, and beneficiaries in their personal capacities. For convenience, and intending no disrespect, I will refer to the members of the Paterson family by their first names. 5 These proceedings raised a number of further causes of action, including a claim that a property at 106 Stately Way, Wallaroo was held on trust for Linda and formed part of the estate. By orders of Bochner AsJ (as her Honour then was) made on 11 July 2024, summary judgment was entered against Linda on each of those further causes of action.2 The trial before me proceeded against the respondents on the single question of whether further provision should be made for Linda under s 7 of the Act. 6 For the reasons which follow, I am satisfied that adequate provision has not been made for Linda’s proper maintenance and advancement in life. I am, however, satisfied that the inadequacy is modest. The will of a testator should not be disturbed more than is necessary. I will order further provision in the sum of $150,000, to be paid out of residue, leaving the specific devises in the will undisturbed. 7 I explicate my reasons below. The Paterson family history 8 The deceased was born in 1938. He married Diane Paterson. They had three children: Graeme, born in 1963; Ian, born in 1965; and Linda, born in 1967. Diane died on 22 July 2012.3 The deceased survived her by some eight years, dying on 9 January 2021 in his early eighties. There are two wills which were prepared by Moloney and Partners, dated 8 March 1989 and 14 February 2018 respectively.4 By his last will, (the Will), the deceased appointed Graeme and Ian to be the executors and trustees of his estate. Probate was granted on 28 July 2022.5 9 The Paterson family has a long association with the west coast of the Yorke Peninsula. The deceased and Diane spent much of their retirement at the deceased’s family’s home at 161 Bay Road, Moonta Bay (the Moonta Bay property). They also had an Adelaide home at 10 Farne Terrace, Marion (the Farne Terrace home). 2 FDN 53 3 Exhibit R13 at [5] (FDN 70). 4 FDN 27, [2]. 5 FDN 46, [12]. -- 4 of 31 -- [2026] SASC 82 Kourakis CJ 3 10 By the Will, the deceased gave his property at 66 Stately Way, Wallaroo (the Wallaroo Property) to Linda,6 his property at 161 Bay Road, Moonta to Graeme, his properties at 84 and 86 Sorata Street, Cape Jervis (the Cape Jervis Properties) to Ian; his shares in Immutep and AMP to Linda; and the residue of his estate in equal thirds to Linda, Ian, and Graeme. The estate 11 According to the statement of assets and liabilities, the Moonta Bay property is more valuable than the Wallaroo or Cape Jervis properties. The shares in Immutep going to Linda were valued at $84,000.7 At the time of the filing of the application for the grant of probate, the net estate was valued at $1,207,718.73. Of the net estate of $1,207,718.73, Linda would receive approximately a quarter of the estate similar to her brother, Ian.8 12 The table and schedule of properties below was provided by the respondents: Property Date acquired and purchase price Contributions Date of death value Present value 84–86 Sorata Street, Cape Jervis (devised to Ian) 13 June 1986 $60,000 Deceased: Purchase price; outgoings to 2009/10. Respondents Equipment hire and supplies described in FDN-70 at [13] – no vouchers available; payments made by the Fourth Respondent described at paragraph [31] of FDN 70 attributable to this property Applicant: Nil. Valuer General – $284,000 Report of McLean Gladstone dated 8 August 2025 – $460,000 161 Bay Road, Moonta Bay (devised to Graeme) 29 August 1989 Gifted inter vivos by deceased’s father; stamp duty of $2,838 Deceased: Outgoings to 2009/10. Respondents: Outgoings from 2009/10 described at paragraph [31] of FDN 70 attributable to this property. Applicant: Nil. Valuer General – $600,000 Report of McLean Gladstone dated 28 July 2025 – $750,000 6 Respondents’ Written Submissions dated 4 November 2025 at [10], not 106 Stately Way. The property 106 Stately Way is not an estate asset. It was bought by Ian name: see Respondents’ Submissions dated 4 November 2025 at [39], [58]. 7 Exhibit R16. 8 FDN 46 at [16]-[18]. -- 5 of 31 -- [2026] SASC 82 Kourakis CJ 4 Property Date acquired and purchase price Contributions Date of death value Present value 66 Stately Way, Wallaroo (devised to Linda) 30 August 2001 $68,000 Deceased: Purchase price; outgoings to 2009/10. Respondents: Outgoings from 2009/10 described at paragraph [31] of FDN 70 attributable to this property. Applicant: Nil. Valuer General – $215,000 Report of McLean Gladstone dated 28 July 2025 – $500,000 106 Stately Way, Wallaroo 15 December 2011 $725,000 Deceased: Nil. Respondents: Fourth Respondent deposit paid 30/10/2011 – $25,000 (FDN 70 at [36]); balance required at settlement (including stamp duty) $291,026.56 paid 16/12/2011 (FDN-70 at [42]); mortgage repayments since 15/12/2011; council rates, ESL, land tax, and water bills from acquisition to date. Applicant: Nil. Valuer General – $810,000 Valuer General – $1,150,000 13 In summary, the current provision to Linda, valued at the date of trial, comprises: • the Wallaroo Property, valued at approximately $500,000; • the Immutep shareholding, approximately $52,000; • the AMP shareholding; and • a one-third share of residue. Taking those components together, Linda’s present entitlement under the Will lies at about $546,000, with the residue yet to be finalised. -- 6 of 31 -- [2026] SASC 82 Kourakis CJ 5 Circumstances of Linda Paterson Personal history 14 Linda went to Underdale High School and graduated in 1989. In 1990, she commenced a Bachelor of Fine Arts (Visual Art) at the University of Adelaide.9 After finishing her degree, Linda moved to Sydney, where she worked between approximately December 1990 and late 2003 holding a succession of casual and short-term positions, the last being a short-term contract in corporate services at the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS).10 15 On returning to South Australia in 2003, Linda established her own website- design business under the name Welcome Star and subsequently worked with her mother at Warakilla aged care centre. This was a full-time role, in which she presented musical performances to the residents. It is not clear why Linda left this job. 16 Linda testified that from 2013 she received a JobSeeker payment of $849.50 fortnightly. Following a favourable decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Linda was entitled to a Disability Support Pension of $1,051.30, together with energy and pension supplements, bringing the total payment to slightly over $1,100.11 Linda testified that she has received a $1,149 fortnightly disability support pension since March 2025, but it was backdated to 1 February 2024, the date of her application.12 Linda resides with her close friend, Pauline Perry (Pauline), who was a real estate agent before her retirement. Medical condition 17 Linda gave evidence that she suffers from ongoing psychological symptoms, described in the medical evidence as trauma-related, which significantly limit her capacity to engage in employment and in ordinary social activities. She is often unable to leave her home and lacks the financial means to maintain a car which further restricts her capacity to engage in employment. Linda is autistic. Her conditions cause heightened sensitivity to verbal and non-verbal cues in social and workplace settings, which she finds distressing and leads her to avoid such environments. 18 Linda gave evidence that she receives psychological treatment. The medical reports received, including the reports of Ms Bethany Paterson dated 8 August 2024 and Mr Greg Fell dated 11 April 2025,13 describe trauma-related symptoms of the kind Linda describes, and speak to their functional impact. 9 Affidavit of Linda Paterson dated 8 December 2022 (FDN 2). 10 T91-92. 11 T190; Two letters from Centrelink dated 25 March 2025 and 8 August 2025 were tendered and admitted as Exhibit A9. 12 T64–69. 13 Exhibit A8, Reports of Bethany Paterson dated 8 August 2024 and Greg Fell dated 11 April 2025. -- 7 of 31 -- [2026] SASC 82 Kourakis CJ 6 Consequently, Linda says she is presently able to undertake only limited artistic work, and even that intermittently. 19 The respondents do not dispute the mental health diagnoses, nor the proposition that it is unlikely Linda will work in the future.14 The relationship between Linda and the deceased 20 By 2011, Linda’s parents, the deceased and Diane, were both retired.15 The deceased had ceased work by the late 1990s, while Diane retired on 28 July 2008.16 21 In cross-examination, Linda accepted that she was not aware of the deceased and Diane’s financial position in 2011 and was never involved in her family’s financial affairs unless explicitly informed.17 She explained that family communication on financial matters generally occurred through Pauline, who acted as an intermediary.18 Linda also explained that she had not been included in any family discussions concerning property matters. 22 Linda said she had no knowledge of her brothers purchasing a truck for the deceased in 1987 or that they subsequently referred work to him.19 She was aware of support which the deceased and Diane had provided to her brothers. 23 When Diane was ill, Linda and Pauline stayed at her parents’ home at 106 Stately Way, Wallaroo Marina (106 Stately Way) for approximately seven months helping to care for her and the deceased.20 Ms Pauline Perry and her relationship with Linda 24 Linda and Pauline first met at a party on 13 December 2005. Linda and Pauline first resided together in July 2006 at Pauline’s residence in 26 Norman Terrace, Everard Park (Norman Terrace). Linda did not pay board. They lived there until Pauline sold it on 13 December 2013.21 They then moved briefly into the Farne Terrace home. 25 Linda and Pauline describe themselves as having an intimate relationship for ten years, from 2006 to 2016.22 In that time, Pauline supported Linda financially, including outgoings (i.e. utilities) and domestic costs (such as groceries). Pauline also paid Linda’s high accumulated credit card debt. Thereafter, their relationship changed, but they remained amicable and have an enduring friendship.23 14 T395. 15 T149. 16 T152. 17 T158. 18 T159. 19 T150. 20 T37-38. 21 T39. 22 T13. 23 T22. -- 8 of 31 -- [2026] SASC 82 Kourakis CJ 7 26 Since 2016, Linda and Pauline have been living in Pauline’s home in Port Pirie.24 The domestic economy has changed somewhat. Linda now contributes towards utilities and groceries, but does not pay board, and continues to be dependent upon Pauline for secure accommodation. 27 Linda holds no proprietary interest in Pauline’s home in Port Pirie. Pauline has expressed the intention that on her death, the home will pass to her two adult children.25 While they have resided together, Linda has not had paid employment and Pauline has been a retiree with a full aged pension.26 28 Linda described her relationship with Pauline as one grounded in mutual care and emotional safety. She acknowledged that they have, on occasions, shared a bed since 2016. Linda said that the two of them felt ‘safe’ and cared for within their relationship. 29 When questioned about financial arrangements, Linda gave evidence that, over the past decade, the majority of food and living expenses have been paid by Pauline. The pair maintained a shared bank account to which Linda contributed approximately $100 to $200 fortnightly. She described this as a ‘friend account’, used primarily for joint expenses such as travel to medical or court appointments and, occasionally, food. 30 Linda intends to continue to reside with Pauline, noting Pauline’s age and her own desire not to leave. While disagreements have occurred, and Pauline has at times told her to leave, Linda explained that when she attempts to do so, Ms Perry changes her mind, resulting in her remaining in the home.27 31 Linda testified that her decision to apply for Centrelink benefits in 2016 was connected to the change in her relationship with Pauline. Her application was for a single person benefit. She testified that their relationship was no longer intimate. 32 Linda accepted in cross-examination that if her arrangement with Pauline were to end, she would seek accommodation through women’s housing or collective housing arrangements. She explained that such housing typically involves paying a percentage of income, and that she could not predict where she might end up. Linda gave evidence that where she resided would depend on the availability of women’s accommodation, whether in Port Pirie or Adelaide. She was uncertain whether she would choose to live in a regional centre or in Adelaide in the future. Linda expressed a preference to live in Adelaide due to its greater opportunities. She hoped to be able to afford to purchase a property and maintain financial independence. 24 T23. 25 See ibid. 26 T31-32. 27 T100. -- 9 of 31 -- [2026] SASC 82 Kourakis CJ 8 Assets, debts, and liabilities 33 Linda stated that her superannuation balance is negligible, estimating it to be approximately two cents.28 She explained that she was never able to accumulate significant superannuation because, following each period of employment, she accessed her superannuation under the hardship provisions. 34 Linda gave evidence about two items of personal property previously associated with the deceased. First, she accepted that her parents had purchased her a Mitsubishi Colt, which she drove back from Sydney on her return to South Australia, and which was now kept at Graeme’s home. She accepted that, in the context of her relationship with Pauline and her ready access to Pauline’s vehicle, it was reasonable for the Colt to be left at her parents’ former residence.29 35 Secondly, Linda gave evidence that in 2012 her father gave her certain items of jewellery, which her mother wished her to have. She did not request the jewellery, nor was she aware it was to be given to her. They were principally rings. She recalled approximately three gold rings, one being a three-diamond engagement ring, and likely two further rings from her maternal grandmother.30 36 Linda gave evidence that she had approximately $5,000 in cash. When questioned about her most valuable personal and household effects, she identified a collection of assets which she estimated to be worth about $15,000 in total. Linda referred to these items collectively as ‘collateral’, a term she later clarified to mean property which she could sell in the event that she did not have money to repay her debts to Pauline.31 37 The principal assets were guitars, collectible banknotes, and a small parcel of shares. Her collection of guitars was extensive and included a red Fender, similar to the model used by Mark Knopfler, purchased in 2011 for approximately $17,000. Two other guitars were gifted to her by Pauline during their travels in 2007: one purchased in New York and a Bruce Springsteen signature Telecaster purchased in Nashville. A fourth guitar was said to be of a similar value to the first. She also owned several additional, less expensive instruments. 38 Linda stated that her collection of banknotes might realise $5,000 if sold now, or potentially $10,000 at a later stage, depending on market interest. She also held shares in Fortescue Ltd, purchased for $2,000. Although she expressed reluctance to sell any of these assets due to their sentimental significance, she acknowledged that they had been offered to Pauline as ‘collateral’ should circumstances arise preventing repayment. The guitars, fenders, and banknotes were located around her home and not confined to one specific location. 28 T92. 29 T93. 30 T97-99. 31 T121. -- 10 of 31 -- [2026] SASC 82 Kourakis CJ 9 39 Linda stated that her current cash holdings across all accounts amount to approximately $5,000. 40 Linda gave evidence that she owed Pauline about $46,000,32 representing debts that Pauline had paid off on her behalf when they first met. Linda estimated that her original debts amounted to around $35,000, primarily consisting of credit card liabilities. She then had three credit cards – American Express, ANZ, and Westpac – and she ‘ping-ponged’ her borrowings between them. 41 She currently maintains three credit cards: an American Express card with a limit of $2,500, an ANZ card with a credit limit of $42,000 (though she has never exceeded a balance of $11,000), and a Westpac card with a credit limit of $23,000. She explained that these cards serve as a financial safety net, as she has never sought assistance from her parents and relies on the available credit in case of emergencies. 42 Linda currently owes $11,270 on an ANZ credit card, which she described as her only remaining credit card debt. 43 According to Linda, Pauline gradually paid off these debts in the five years before the death of Linda’s mother in 2011. Linda emphasised that these payments were made in the context of their relationship and not pursuant to any formal or implied agreement that she would repay Pauline. Pauline has, at no stage, requested repayment. 44 Linda acknowledged that the payments were made because they were in a relationship and that Pauline never required repayment or imposed any condition when making those payments.33 Nonetheless, Linda has assumed a moral responsibility to do so. 45 Linda is indebted for her legal costs connected to her action comprising $11,000 to Mark Jappe, $5,609 to Vanessa Varga, and $15,000 to Leventis Lawyers, comprising a total of $31,609. 46 The total of Linda’s outstanding liabilities is $88,879.34 47 Ms Perry testified regarding Linda’s income during their domestic relationship, stating that Linda occasionally earned modest amounts through musical performances at aged-care facilities, typically between $70 and $150 per engagement, occurring approximately once a fortnight. Linda would contribute half of these earnings towards household expenses such as petrol. 32 T124. 33 T137. 34 T130–131. -- 11 of 31 -- [2026] SASC 82 Kourakis CJ 10 The circumstances of Pauline Perry 48 Ms Pauline Perry acted as McKenzie friend to Linda throughout the trial. Pauline is a retired real-estate agent, having worked between 1992 and 2002, initially full-time and subsequently as a manager for the real estate company Wardle Co. As mentioned above, she has been in a domestic relationship, and now a long-standing cohabiting friendship, with Linda from 2006 to the present. 49 Pauline gave evidence in chief and was cross-examined. I found her to be a reliable witness with a comprehensive recollection of the domestic arrangements in which she and Linda had been involved. She gave evidence about her work history, her acquisition and sale of the Everard Park property, her involvement in the acquisition of 106 Stately Way, and the move to Port Pirie. She gave evidence, too, about Linda’s pattern of income during their relationship and about the care provided to the deceased during his last days. Relationship with the family 50 In 2012, Diane was ill. According to Pauline, Diane asked whether Pauline and Linda would move into 106 Stately Way with her and assist in her palliative care. Other Paterson family members came up on the weekends. 51 Linda’s family generally communicated through Pauline rather than directly with her due, in part, to Linda’s medical conditions. Linda stated that she often relied on Pauline to inform her of family matters, including arrangements concerning her father’s care. 52 Linda explained that when her father’s health deteriorated in 2020, Ian contacted Pauline seeking assistance, and she and Pauline travelled together to Adelaide to provide support. They stayed in the same accommodation and assisted with care during the week, while Ian cared for their father on weekends. 53 Linda also testified that Pauline helped coordinate palliative care and supported Linda in fulfilling her father’s wish to spend his final days at Wallaroo, overlooking the marina. Overall, Pauline provided not only emotional support but also acted as an intermediary in family dealings and practical arrangements during significant events. 54 Pauline gave evidence that in approximately mid-to-late November 2011 she had a conversation with Ian Paterson about the purchase of the property at 106 Stately Way. 55 Pauline testified that the deceased telephoned her and asked her to speak with Ian, whom, the deceased said, was in a distressed state having signed the contract for the purchase of the 106 Stately Way property. Ian was then living at 17 Larkdale Avenue, Marion. 56 The deceased informed Pauline that Ian was obtaining a loan from ANZ to purchase 106 Stately Way. He told her that Ian was under considerable stress. The -- 12 of 31 -- [2026] SASC 82 Kourakis CJ 11 deceased also conveyed his intention to sell the Moonta Bay property having advertised the property, but reported that Graeme had contacted him in anger, asserting that the property should not be sold as it was intended for the grandchildren. 57 After the conversation with the deceased, Pauline drove to Larkdale Avenue to see Ian. She described finding Ian on the end of his couch, crying, and she consoled him.35 Pauline reassured Ian that his parents would sell other properties to repay him for the purchase. 58 Ian, by securing finance, assumed significant risk to assist his parents in acquiring what was described as their ‘dream marina home’. Ian proceeded with the settlement.36 59 Pauline testified that whilst staying at Farne Terrace, she saw Ian place Linda in a headlock in the kitchen. She says that the genesis of the argument was the deceased telling Pauline and Linda that they could take the rug that was in the home but that Ian did not want Linda to have it when moving out.37 60 Linda claimed that after she and Pauline were in Farne Terrace for approximately one week, Ian informed her that the home was for sale and that she would have to leave the home. Pauline’s brother assisted them in moving to Port Pirie before Christmas.38 Pauline’s evidence was that she and Linda resided at Farne Terrace for approximately a fortnight before the conversation between Linda and Ian. Pauline called her brother, who came down from Port Pirie to pick up furniture.39 Ian drove a second truck to Port Pirie, and drove the truck back to Adelaide.40 61 Pauline gave evidence that in the days preceding the deceased’s death in 2021, Ian contacted her seeking assistance. She and Linda stayed where the deceased was residing with Ian, and remained there for an extended period to provide care. The deceased requested that Pauline contact his doctor to facilitate his return to Wallaroo, where he wished to spend his final days. The circumstances of Ian Paterson 62 Ian also gave evidence. 63 Ian gave evidence about a work related traumatic brain injury in 2005, his recollection of first meeting Pauline, the gathering at Moonta Bay in October 2011 at which the purchase of 106 Stately Way was first discussed, the telephone 35 T4. 36 T44. 37 T29. 38 T28-29. 39 T29. 40 T39–40. -- 13 of 31 -- [2026] SASC 82 Kourakis CJ 12 communications with family members in the days leading up to and following the auction, and the circumstances of the purchase itself. 64 Ian was employed as a plant operator with Paterson Contractors Pty Ltd, a business jointly owned by himself and his brother, Graeme, which provided plant hire and operator services to civil construction companies and owned its own machinery, including excavators, loaders, and trucks. He stated that following an injury prior to October 2011, his driver’s licence was suspended for six months, during which he received compensation payments until obtaining medical clearance to resume work. Upon returning, he was again required to undergo clearance procedures before recommencing his duties. At the relevant time, both he and his brother operated the company’s machinery in the course of its civil construction work.41 65 Ian gave evidence regarding his mother’s gambling habits. He stated that he would help his father find his mother if she was late returning home after work, frequently finding her at local hotels playing poker machines. He testified that proceeds from property sales and his mother’s employment income were largely lost through gambling. Diane worked at Aberfoyle Park and regularly stopped at hotels such as the Flagstaff and Marion on her way home. Bank records confirm withdrawals consistent with gambling activity, with some nights involving losses of up to $800. Ian explained that he supported his father financially for years and that his father opposed selling properties because he feared Diane would access money in the bank and lose it gambling.42 66 On or around 6 June 2005, Ian suffered a traumatic brain injury which hospitalised him and left him unable to work for six months while he recovered.43 Ian continues to suffer a loss of smell, tinnitus in his left ear, and daily sinus issues. He does not use electronic devices because of his concern that it may cause short term memory loss.44 A worker’s compensation claim was resolved in 2018.45 67 Ian recalls first meeting Pauline on 9 June 2005 while hospitalised.46 He was still ‘dazed’ and assumed Pauline to be a friend of Linda.47 His recollection of this initial meeting coincided with the day he believes he regained consciousness. He could not recall how long the visit lasted. His recollection dates the relationship between Linda and Pauline back to the year before they say they met. The difference is insignificant, but if it were to matter, I would not rely on Ian’s recollection having regard to the nature of his injury at the relevant time. 68 Ian testified that he first became aware that 106 Stately Way was up for sale during a gathering at Moonta Bay in October 2011. All family members, including 41 T223-224. 42 T221. 43 T217-218. 44 T218. 45 See ibid. 46 See ibid. 47 T218-219. -- 14 of 31 -- [2026] SASC 82 Kourakis CJ 13 Linda and Pauline, were present when it was discussed. Only Graeme attended the property with their father for an open inspection.48 The Farne Terrace property had earlier been offered to him subject to conditions that his parents could continue residing there and that he would provide them with care. 69 Over the October long weekend, before the purchase of 106 Stately Way, there was no agreement about repaying Ian from the proceeds of sale of the Farne Terrace home if he purchased it for his parents. Ian stated that his parents had offered that property to him on the condition that they could acquire their dream home at 106 Stately Way. He testified that, in the lead-up to the auction on 30 October 2011, he had multiple conversations with family members, and, on the evening of 29 October, he spoke with them by telephone for approximately 70 minutes regarding this arrangement, which had been raised on several prior occasions. The condition agreed upon was that Ian would provide his parents with the property at 106 Stately Way for their residence and care in their later years and, in return, he would receive the Farne Terrace home. He stated that, on 29 October 2011, he was urged to purchase 106 Stately Way because his parents lacked the financial means to do so. This proposal had been raised previously and was reiterated in the lead-up to the auction.49 As a result of those discussions, Ian attended the auction the next day. 70 The were very few people at the auction on 30 October. Ian’s father told him that the property had been on the market for some time at an asking price of $760,000. No bids were made. After discussions with the auctioneer, Ian agreed to purchase the property, subject to finance through ANZ Bank.50 71 Ian confirmed that the contract for the sale of 106 Stately Way was for $725,000 and that he signed as ‘purchaser and/or nominee,’ noting this wording was inserted by the auctioneer. He paid a $25,000 deposit on the day he signed.51 72 Ian could not recall any direct discussion with his father in Linda’s presence about 106 Stately Way. Most conversations about the property occurred over the phone with Pauline prior to the purchase. He referred to phone records showing multiple calls with Pauline on 30 October 2011, the day of the auction, noting that Linda and Pauline shared a phone, but Pauline always answered. Ian confirmed that the auction took place at approximately 12:00 pm and that he signed the contract before calling his parents at 12:17 pm. Subsequent calls between 1:11 pm and 3:00 pm, some lasting several minutes, were made to Pauline’s number and related to informing them of the purchase and further discussions about the property. 48 T220-221. 49 T229–230. 50 T226-227. 51 T227-228. -- 15 of 31 -- [2026] SASC 82 Kourakis CJ 14 73 Ian testified that if he had not attempted to purchase the property, he would have invested in an industrial property in Somerton Park, then valued at approximately $550,000. 74 Ian gave evidence that the Farne Terrace home was subsequently sold. The contract was signed in December 2013, and settlement occurred in May 2014 after a one-month extension from the settlement date. 75 Following the auction purchase of 106 Stately Way, Ian sought finance through ANZ Bank and met with Mr Michael Edson, the line manager overseeing the relevant loan application. He completed the necessary paperwork and left it for processing. On 8 November 2011, a fax from Mr Edson to auctioneer Damien Page advised that ANZ was unable to assist with the finance application. Ian stated that he subsequently met with Mr Edson to review his liabilities, noting he was already paying approximately $5,000 per month on a business loan as a sole trader and that the company had an additional loan of $300,000 over a 30-year term. Ian informed his father and other family members of the declined application, and that he was under significant financial stress due to existing commitments and limited work availability, despite recently securing a contract to work on a major rail upgrade project. He described having ‘cold feet’ and conveyed this to his father, Pauline, Linda, and Graeme in long telephone conversations on 8 and 9 November. Family members and Pauline attempted to persuade him to proceed with the purchase by reassuring him that he would receive the Farne Terrace home.52 76 Ian recalled Pauline reassuring him that ‘everything will be OK’. His parents and family too strongly encouraged him to proceed, offering guarantees to secure the property for his parents’ benefit.53 77 Ian stated that, following discussions with Pauline and based on his parents’ offer of the Farne Terrace home, he assumed the risk and proceeded with settlement of 106 Stately Way. He ultimately secured finance of $450,000 from ANZ Bank, with the balance funded from his own resources. He explained that $291,000 came from his savings account, which included $250,000 plus adjustments for the $25,000 deposit previously paid. He also confirmed that he paid the stamp duty on the transaction.54 78 Ian testified that the proceeds from the sale of the deceased’s shares amounting to approximately $65,000, were transferred to him on 9 December 2011 to assist with the financing of 106 Stately Way. He regarded this sum as a loan and later repaid it when the Farne Terrace home was sold for approximately $615,000. The deceased intended to give Ian the full proceeds of the Farne Terrace sale. However, of the total sale price of the Farne Terrace home, the deceased retained about $215,000, which included the $65,000 he had previously advanced Ian. Ian explained that the $450,000 figure referred to as the ‘loan amount’ 52 T292-294. 53 T231–232. 54 T232-233. -- 16 of 31 -- [2026] SASC 82 Kourakis CJ 15 comprised $420,000 remaining on the ANZ loan for 106 Stately Way, and $30,000 he paid to clear the deceased’s Visa card on 13 December, totalling $450,000.55 79 Ian confirmed that the amount of $420,000 was close to what was required to offset his borrowing for 106 Stately Way and explained that these funds remained in his offset account, which he also used for business purposes. He stated that he still owed approximately $140,000 on the loan, with around $80,000 currently in the offset account, noting that the funds had been used for other purposes over time. He agreed that maintaining the offset arrangement reduced interest charges on the 106 Stately Way loan, explaining that during the first two and a half years he paid approximately $60,000 in interest.56 80 Ian confirmed that the ANZ BML offset account recorded a withdrawal of $291,026.56 on 16 December 2011, which represented the balance required for settlement of 106 Stately Way. He explained that prior to this, an amount of $101,000 had been transferred from his V2+ account, funds he had originally intended to invest in constructing an industrial tilt-up building on land at Somerton Park, estimated at $550,000 at the time.57 81 Following settlement, his parents moved into 106 Stately Way immediately, and he assisted with relocating furniture from Moonta. Prior to the purchase, Ian resided at 17 Larkdale Avenue, Marion. After his parents moved into 106 Stately Way, the Farne Terrace home became his responsibility, and he paid all rates and outgoings, though he did not occupy it immediately. His mother and father would stay there if they came to Adelaide. He later moved into the Farne Terrace home after his mother’s passing to reside with his father. 82 After Diane died in July 2012, his father was flown to Adelaide in or around September/October. He stayed with Ian in Farne Terrace for a period until he was well enough to return to Wallaroo. There were other occasions on which the deceased visited Adelaide, in 2013.58 Ian initially only stayed with his father when he was visiting Adelaide. Ian permanently changed his residence from Larkdale Avenue to Farne Terrace in June/July 2013.59 Conflict over Farne Terrace 83 A contract of sale for the Farne Terrace home was signed on 6 December 2013, within a week or so of placing it with an agent. 84 Ian stated that he first became aware that Linda and Pauline were moving into the Farne Terrace home only after their arrival. Ian testified that there had been no prior discussion or notice of their intention to move in. In contrast, Linda recalled having a phone conversation with the deceased in which she and Pauline 55 T240, 243-244; also see T272-275; see Exhibit R14; see Affidavit FDN 70 at [49]. 56 T280-281. 57 T235. 58 T243. 59 See ibid. -- 17 of 31 -- [2026] SASC 82 Kourakis CJ 16 informed him of their plans to occupy the property, noting that this information was to be passed on to others in the family. Ian denied that any such conversation took place and maintained that he was unaware of their intentions. 85 Ian testified that Linda and Pauline moved in on 13 December 2013 when he was living there in his father’s old bedroom. Ian stated that when Linda and Pauline arrived, they indicated they intended to move in, with Linda telling him, ‘Dad told me I’m allowed to stay here with Pauline’.60 He understood they were in the process of selling Pauline’s Norman Terrance home and saw that they stored some belongings in the shed at Farne Terrace, while other items, such as an old bench seat and Linda’s barbecue, were given to him and remained at his residence at 17 Larkdale Avenue. 86 Ian gave evidence that Linda and Pauline were storing items in the shed at the Farne Terrace home and that he observed Pauline’s brother collecting furniture, including a bed. He stated that he did not question why the furniture was there, how long it would remain, or where Linda and Pauline intended to live. Ian testified that he understood Pauline was returning to Port Pirie because her family was located there and recalled her saying, ‘I’m moving back to Port Pirie now that I’m not in the Everard Park house’. When asked why he did not inquire further of his father, Linda, or Pauline about the duration of storage or their living arrangements, Ian responded, ‘I didn’t ask questions like that’.61 87 He recalled assisting with their relocation on 24 February 2014, Linda’s birthday, by driving a rental truck from 10 Farne Terrace, Marion, to Risdon Park, Port Pirie, unloading late at night, and returning the vehicle to the rental company Cut Price Rentals, on Sir Donald Bradman Drive (formerly Burbidge Road), the following morning.62 88 Ian testified that when Linda and Pauline were about to move into the Farne Terrace home, he told them the property had been sold. He said that he did not have any conversation with Linda about moving in before she did, and that his father never said anything about Linda and Pauline coming to stay.63 89 Linda testified that in December 2013, she and Pauline moved into the Farne Terrace home after Pauline’s Everard Park home was sold.64 Linda testified that she was not aware, when she moved into the Farne Terrace home, that a contract of sale had been entered into for the property. She explained that two years earlier her father had told her she could ‘move in and stay as long as you like’. She believed the house was vacant. However, she observed that Ian began staying there regularly, leaving his boots at the door and occupying their father’s bedroom. After about a week, she questioned Ian about why he did not return to his own 60 T250. 61 T285-287. 62 T250. 63 T285. 64 T26- 27. -- 18 of 31 -- [2026] SASC 82 Kourakis CJ 17 home, and he then informed her that the property was for sale, which came as a surprise to her.65 90 Ian recalled that Linda was unhappy about him being at the Farne Terrace home and that this was the point at which the alleged ‘headlock’ incident occurred. Ian denies that he ever had Linda in a headlock and that he just put his arm around her to ‘try and settle her and hold her back’.66 According to Ian, Linda said, ‘Why don’t you just go home back to your own property and leave us to ourselves’. He testified that he refused to leave, explaining that he had four to five months to clean up the property, including clearing the shed, which contained a significant amount of junk. He noted that his brother Graeme assisted him during this period.67 91 At this time, the home at Larkdale Avenue, Marion was vacant. The reason Ian was in the Farne Terrace home was to be with his dad from mid-2013 when the dad was in Adelaide. Ian was maintaining both properties, paying the rates and taxes on both. Ian did not live with anyone and has no children. Care of the deceased 92 Ian stated that during 2020, he was living in Adelaide and his father resided with him for an extended period, estimated at approximately 18 months, at his property at 17 Larkdale Avenue, Marion. He explained that his father spent several months in hospital and, upon discharge in late November, returned to live with him. Ian denied claims that he contacted Pauline in distress seeking assistance, asserting that phone records confirm he did not call her during late November or December. Instead, Pauline and Linda offered to assist by staying in Adelaide during weekdays, while Ian continued to provide daily care, including preparing breakfast and lunch and attending to his father, who was largely bedbound. He noted that Pauline and Linda occasionally went out during their stay and that friends from Mount Gambier visited near the end of this period. Ian stated that Pauline and Linda remained for several weeks until his work break in December 2020, after which he transported his father to Wallaroo on 24 December for Christmas. He observed that his father was unwell, remained in his bedroom during Christmas Day, and appeared reluctant to stay at Wallaroo. 93 Ian returned to Adelaide on 29 December to prepare machinery for work commencing on 5 January, and his father accompanied him back to Marion. He explained that Graeme assisted with moving machinery while Ian stayed with his father. On 5 January 2021, Graeme contacted Pauline regarding arrangements, as Linda did not have a phone, and phone records reflect all calls were made to Pauline’s number. 94 Ian testified that while at Wallaroo, Pauline and Linda shared a bedroom with a double bed and presented themselves as a couple, which was apparent to him and 65 T176. 66 T252. 67 T251. -- 19 of 31 -- [2026] SASC 82 Kourakis CJ 18 others. He described that after returning to Adelaide, he and Graeme arranged palliative care for their father, who deteriorated rapidly. Pauline and Linda agreed to return to Wallaroo to care for him, and they remained there from Tuesday through Friday until Ian and Graeme could return on Saturday. Ian recounted arriving at Wallaroo late on Saturday evening, around 9:00 pm, and finding his father cold and unresponsive in the lounge room. He immediately alerted the others present, who confirmed that his father had passed away shortly before his arrival.68 95 Ian confirmed that prior to his father’s death, Linda and Pauline stayed together at his residence at 17 Larkdale Avenue. He explained that the house had only two usable bedrooms, and he gave them his queen bed for several weeks while he moved between rooms. He further stated that during Christmas 2020 at Wallaroo, Linda and Pauline again shared a bedroom, as they ‘always did,’ despite the property having five bedrooms and additional sleeping options. He noted that they never requested separate rooms and consistently acted as a couple, going everywhere together and doing everything jointly. This pattern of shared accommodation and conduct continued until his father’s passing. The respondents contend that Linda and Pauline maintained a close, longstanding relationship.69 Evidence of Graeme Paterson 96 Graeme gave evidence that, during the October long weekend on which 106 Stately Way was purchased, he had a discussion with his mother about family matters which became heated. In that context, he raised her gambling on poker machines. The conversation moved from the bedroom into the hallway and then into the kitchen, where Linda, Pauline, and his mother were present, and his father entered from outside. He then heard for the first time his parents discussing the property at Wallaroo, 106 Stately Way. He recalled that the Farne Terrace home and 161 Moonta Bay Road had been advertised for sale at that time. He testified that he was disappointed but not upset, acknowledging that circumstances change and priorities shift. During this discussion, his parents briefly mentioned that they were prepared to give Ian the Farne Terrace home. Ian was not present at that moment. Graeme then drove his father to inspect 106 Stately Way. 97 At about this time, the deceased and Diane had mentioned that they were prepared to give the Farne Terrace home to Ian. Discussion then turned to 106 Stately Way, its size, features, and proximity to the marina and pontoon. Graeme recalled that Ian had a significant deposit available at that time, originally set aside for another purpose, but Ian was not present during that particular exchange. 98 Graeme stated that, apart from his father’s occasional visits to carry out maintenance, no one resided at the Moonta Bay property. Graeme testified that his father knew he had spent much of his childhood at the Moonta Bay property with his grandparents. After his father executed his will in 2018, his father 68 T268-270. 69 T271-272. -- 20 of 31 -- [2026] SASC 82 Kourakis CJ 19 explained that Pauline and Linda had requested a block of land.70 The deceased said that he would leave 66 Stately Way to Linda because Pauline had previously owned a block at the marina but had lost it in a previous relationship settlement.71 99 Graeme stated that his father expressed a wish for him and his children to be able to use the property at 161 Bay Road, Moonta Bay after his passing.72 100 In relation to the property known as Sorata, Graeme testified that the deceased said Ian was to receive the property, but nothing was said about the reason for doing so. 101 Graeme also outlined his personal background in relation to divorce, the financial situation resulting from that circumstance, and his responsibilities in relation to a dependent child.73 102 When Graeme was at Wallaroo, he saw the deceased almost every day but during the period he was there, he never saw Linda.74 After Graeme moved back to Adelaide, but before the date of death of the deceased, he would see his father at least once a month. He testified that he saw Pauline and Linda on the odd occasion. Pauline and Linda would stay in the same room and were a couple, even after 2016.75 Submissions of the parties 103 In her submissions, Linda emphasised her poor psychological health. Linda submitted that she has, for many years, relied heavily on her companion Pauline for emotional and financial support. However, she argued that such reliance is inherently uncertain and cannot replace the deceased’s moral obligation to provide for his daughter. The Court was urged to recognise that relationships are inherently fragile and that future events, such as Pauline’s death, incapacity, or financial hardship, could leave Linda without support. 104 Linda contended that the deceased could not reasonably have expected Pauline to assume his parental responsibilities in perpetuity, and that the will should have reflected an independent provision capable of sustaining Linda regardless of her relationship status. Central to those submissions is the contention that the deceased owed a continuing moral duty to ensure that his daughter, a person with lifelong vulnerabilities, was protected from hardship. Linda argued that ‘adequate and proper’ provision must be assessed not only by reference to her current financial position but also to her realistic prospects and needs extending into the future. 70 I will not receive that as to its truth, but as to the lead up to what his father said about any explanation as to why he gave that to them. 71 T320. 72 T321. 73 T322-323. 74 T323. 75 T323-324. -- 21 of 31 -- [2026] SASC 82 Kourakis CJ 20 105 Linda contended that the Will failed to satisfy this. The provision was characterised as a ‘buffer in hard time’ rather than a sustainable arrangement capable of meeting her needs for housing, medical expenses, and basic security. Linda urged the Court to consider the totality of the circumstances. 106 The respondents submitted that the starting point is that provision has already been made for Linda. The Court must first determine whether the discretion under the relevant legislation is enlivened and, if so, what order should be made. As at the present date, the property at 106 Stately Way, Wallaroo is valued at approximately $500,000 according to Gladstone Valuers, and the estate includes shares worth about $46,000, together with some AMP shares. While any remaining bank funds have likely been depleted during the litigation and may be disregarded, the respondents contend that provision in the order of $500,000 plus shares of $46,000, subject to costs and liabilities, is adequate. They argue that Linda has been in stable accommodation since 2014 and that the claim should therefore be dismissed. 107 The respondents further note that much of the trial time has been occupied with issues concerning 106 Stately Way, which they submit is irrelevant as there is no claim that the property forms part of the estate.76 108 The respondents submit that the evidence establishes that the property was purchased in Ian’s name, and that he provided the entire purchase price, comprising both the cash component and the finance. Ian made all loan repayments, save that when Farne Terrace was sold, the proceeds (approximately $450,000) were paid to the deceased and then transferred to Ian, who placed the funds in a mortgage offset account, thereby reducing interest on the loan. 109 The respondents contend that Linda’s contention that the deceased could have funded the purchase by selling shares or other properties is a neutral consideration. Had that occurred, the estate would have been diminished in any event. They say the evidence shows that the deceased and his wife regarded moving to the property as important, but could not afford to do so without Ian’s assistance. Ian reluctantly agreed to purchase the property, incurring the loss of access to his own funds and ongoing costs of maintaining the property and servicing the mortgage. 110 Accordingly, the respondents argue that these circumstances do not justify any order for provision in Linda’s favour. They further submit that, while the respondents have not provided a detailed account of their financial position, this does not strengthen the Linda’s case, as the onus remains on her to establish that the provision made was inadequate.77 111 The respondents submit that the Court can take into account numerous factors in relation to the question of what discretion to be exercised. The personal 76 T206-207. 77 T207-208. -- 22 of 31 -- [2026] SASC 82 Kourakis CJ 21 circumstances of the Linda and of Ian and Graeme are all relevant. Their financial circumstances in respect of the topic of need are also a relevant consideration. 112 The respondents contend that, on the evidence, Linda has not led sufficient evidence to demonstrate why that provision is inadequate in light of her current circumstances. Those include that she’s been in a stable relationship with the same person since at least 2006.78 The respondents accept that Linda is a person in need but contend that the deceased made adequate provision for those needs.79 113 The respondents further contend that she has not demonstrated further need, and even if the Court made such a ruling, it should only make an order for provision to the extent necessary to provide for a buffer (not to the extent of giving her the current resources to buy her own house mortgage free). The respondents accept that one of those contingencies is that Linda may need to move into her own accommodation, but contend that Linda has not demonstrated that she has been left without inadequate provision to meet that particular need. 114 Ian and Graeme accept that by reason of their personal assets they are not in ‘need’, and that the deceased has quite properly provided for them, and that he was right to do so, having regard to their personal, financial and other circumstances, and the close relationship they had with the deceased. That close relationship extended to them providing considerable financial and other assistance to the deceased over the years. Without that assistance, the deceased would have had to realise assets and the estate would have been smaller.80 115 The respondents submitted that the deceased’s estate planning reflected a legitimate decision to benefit his sons more substantially, consistent with his perception of their needs and contributions. 116 The respondents conceded that it was highly improbable that Linda would be capable of maintaining stable employment. The Court was invited to consider her presentation and conduct throughout the trial, which, it was said, reflected an inability to manage the demands of regular work. This impression was reinforced by the evidence of Linda’s significant anxiety and autism, both of which made participation in the proceedings difficult. However, the respondents submit that Linda has benefited from a long-standing friendship and relationship of reliance with Pauline, upon which she has continued to depend for emotional and financial support. 117 The respondents argued that there is no community expectation that an adult child should be provided for to the extent of being able to purchase a home mortgage-free. The Court was urged to adopt a realistic view of contemporary standards, acknowledging that many adults must secure accommodation independently. It was submitted that Linda’s need for housing, while genuine, was 78 T390. 79 T390–391. 80 Respondent’s Written Submissions dated 4 November 2025 at [4.9]. -- 23 of 31 -- [2026] SASC 82 Kourakis CJ 22 not urgent, and that the deceased’s decision to provide primarily for his sons was not inconsistent with prevailing community norms. 118 The respondents noted that Linda retains two alternative courses: she may retain her existing assets, which might appreciate in value, or she may sell them and invest the proceeds to generate an income stream. Either approach, it was said, would allow her to meet foreseeable contingencies without the necessity of altering the Will. 119 The respondents also raised contingencies relating to Pauline’s legal position. It was suggested that Linda may have entitlements pursuant to the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), including the potential to make a claim against the estate or to assert an interest in property jointly held or acquired during the relationship. The purpose of this submission was to caution the Court against accepting at face value Linda’s claim that her relationship with Pauline could end and that this would increase financial pressure significantly. The respondents argued that such assertions should be afforded little weight given the enduring nature of their relationship and the practical support Pauline has consistently provided. 120 The respondents further submitted that the hypothetical scenario of Pauline’s death did not warrant the Court’s intervention, as Linda, at that time, may have the opportunity to make a claim against Pauline’s estate. The respondents noted that Linda has already received financial benefits through Pauline’s generosity and support, which mitigate her asserted need. 121 The respondents emphasised that the nature of the relationship between Linda and Pauline was an important factor in determining her needs. The Court was asked to consider the evidence that the two women shared a bed during family gatherings and within their view, which, the respondents argued, indicated a relationship of a personal and intimate character likely to continue. This, it was submitted, distinguished Linda’s situation from that of a dependent child wholly reliant on a parent’s support or income. 122 The respondents referred to the availability of public and social support mechanisms, including rental assistance and housing supplements accessible to individuals receiving the Disability Support Pension through Centrelink. It was submitted that these existing forms of assistance diminish the immediacy of Linda’s housing need and further support the conclusion that the provision made in the Will was adequate and proper. Submissions after reservation of judgment 123 After judgment was reserved, and pursuant to my orders,81 the parties provided written submissions on current median rental and purchase prices of one- bedroom apartments or one-bedroom homes in Port Pirie and the outer (but not 81 Record of Outcome dated 4 September 2025 (FDN 75). -- 24 of 31 -- [2026] SASC 82 Kourakis CJ 23 remote) metropolitan suburbs of Adelaide, utilising information from publicly available and independently verifiable sources.82 124 The parties also provided written submissions on two reports provided to the parties on homelessness, specifically the Estimating Homelessness Census of the Australian Bureau of Statistics dated 22 March 2023, and the Improving Housing Security for Older Women Recommendation Report of the South Australian Government Housing Security for Older Women Taskforce dated 7 September 2023 (hereafter collectively referred to as the Reports). 125 In these submissions, I asked for a submission on whether the Court can take judicial notice of what has been described as increasing rates of homelessness in the Australian demographic of women aged 55 and over, and the extent to which I can take judicial notice of that social phenomenon, and whether it is a relevant consideration in assessing whether adequate provision has been made. 126 The respondents contend judicial notice cannot be taken of this social phenomenon and that much depends on the particular circumstances of the individual.83 127 They further submit that the Reports were not relevant issues before the Court, that they were policy documents for Government, and that there was no evidence that Linda would likely become homeless given the amount of provision made for her in the Will, even if her long-standing relationship with Pauline were ever to change.84 Relevant legal principles The principles 128 The plurality in Singer v Berghouse (Singer),85 comprising Mason CJ, Deane and McHugh JJ, outlined the two-stage enquiry in approaching statutory provision such as s 7 of the Act. The first calls for a determination of whether the provision made for the applicant was inadequate for her proper maintenance, education and advancement in life (the jurisdictional question).86 This determination requires the Court to make an objective value judgment on what is adequate and proper, according to the Court’s general understanding and experience of current social conditions and standards.87 The determination of whether the applicant has been 82 Record of Outcome dated 4 September 2025 (FDN 75). 83 Respondents’ Written Submissions dated 4 November 2025 at [30]. 84 Respondents’ Supplementary Written Submissions dated 8 September 2025 at [2]-[3]. 85 Singer v Berghouse (1994) 181 CLR 201 at 208-209 (Mason CJ, Deane and McHugh JJ). 86 Singer v Berghouse (1994) 181 CLR 201 at 208-209 (Mason CJ, Deane and McHugh JJ). 87 Goodman v Windeyer (1980) 144 CLR 490 at 502 (Gibbs J, with Stephen and Mason JJ agreeing); see also Singer v Berghouse (1994) 181 CLR 201 at 208-209 (Mason CJ, Deane and McHugh JJ). -- 25 of 31 -- [2026] SASC 82 Kourakis CJ 24 left without adequate provision is a question of fact which involves an exercise of evaluative judgments.88 129 The second stage, which only arises if a determination is made in favour of the applicant in the first stage, requires the Court to determine what provision ought to be made from the deceased’s estate in favour of the applicant.89 This assessment is made within the purpose of the Act, as described by Lovell J in Parker v Australian Executor Trustees Ltd:90 The purpose of the Act is to permit a court in certain circumstances to displace a testator’s dispositions. It does not impose any limitation on a testator’s power of disposition but if the statutory conditions are satisfied a court is empowered to alter a testator’s disposition to produce a result that is consistent with the purpose of the Act. The legislation is remedial in character and has been construed to give the most complete remedy which the phraseology will permit. (Footnote omitted) 130 In summary, the process is to ascertain whether the bequest is adequate; and (in the absence of a countervailing consideration), if not, what proper additional amount should be allowed.91 131 The descriptors ‘adequate’ and ‘proper’ have different meanings in this context. In McCosker v McCosker,92 Dixon CJ and Williams J referred to what had been said by the Privy Council in Bosch v Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd:93 The use of the word ‘proper’ in this connection is of considerable importance. It connotes something different from the word ‘adequate’. A small sum may be sufficient for the ‘adequate’ maintenance of a child, for instance, but, having regard to the child’s station in life and the fortune of his father, it may be wholly insufficient for his ‘proper’ maintenance. So, too, a sum may be quite insufficient for the ‘adequate’ maintenance of a child and yet may be sufficient for his maintenance on a scale that is ‘proper’ in all the circumstances. A father with a large family and a small fortune can often only afford to leave each of his children a sum insufficient for his ‘adequate’ maintenance. Nevertheless, such sum cannot be described as not providing for his ‘proper’ maintenance, taking into consideration ‘all the circumstances of the case’ as the sub-section requires shall be done. 132 As Debelle J stated in Bowyer v Wood:94 It is well established that the word ‘proper’ is not intended to give the court power to rewrite the will in accordance with its own ideas of justice and fairness. Instead, the use of the word ‘proper’ is intended to require the adequacy of the provision which has been made to 88 See White v Barron (1980) 144 CLR 431 at 441-443 (Mason J), 448-449 (Aickin J), 456-457 (Wilson J); Goodman v Windeyer (1980) 144 CLR 490 at 509 (Aickin J); Hunter v Hunter (1987) 8 NSWLR 573 at 576 (Kirby P). 89 Bramwell v Bramwell (2023) 143 SASR 496 at [75] (Livesey P, Doyle and David JJA). 90 Parker v Australian Executor Trustees [2016] SASC 64 at [17]. 91 T393. 92 (1957) 97 CLR 566. 93 [1938] AC 463 at 476. 94 (2007) 99 SASR 190 at [41]. -- 26 of 31 -- [2026] SASC 82 Kourakis CJ 25 be determined by reference to all relevant circumstances including the size of the estate: …’ 133 In relation to the word ‘proper’, Dixon CJ and Williams J elaborated:95 It means “proper” in all the circumstances of the case, so that the question whether a widow or child of a testator has been left without adequate provision for his or her proper maintenance, education or advancement in life must be considered in the light of all the competing claims upon the bounty of the testator and their relative urgency, the standard of living his family enjoyed in his lifetime, in the case of a child his or her need of education or of assistance in some chosen occupation and the testator's ability to meet such claims having regard to the size of his fortune. If the court considers that there has been a breach by a testator of his duty as a wise and just husband or father to make adequate provision for the proper maintenance education or advancement in life of the applicant, having regard to all these circumstances, the court has jurisdiction to remedy the breach and for that purpose to modify the testator's testamentary dispositions to the necessary extent. 134 A few years later, in Pontifical Society for the Propagation of the Faith v Scales, Dixon CJ said:96 What is “adequate” must be relative not only to his needs but to his own capacity and resources for meeting them. There is then a relation to be considered between these matters on the one hand, and on the other, the nature, extent and character of the estate and the other demands upon it, and also what the testator regarded as superior claims or preferable dispositions. 135 In Taylor v Farrugia,97 Brereton J considered the question of adequate provision in the context of adult children: These are claims by adult children. It is impossible in this area to describe in terms of universal application the moral obligation or community expectation of a parent in respect of an adult child. I think, however, it can be said that ordinarily the community expects parents to raise and educate their children to the very best of their ability while they remain children; probably to assist them with a tertiary education, and where that is feasible; where funds allow, to provide them with a start in life – such as a deposit on a home, although it might well take a different form. The community does not expect a parent, in ordinary circumstances, to provide an unencumbered house, or to set their children up in a position where they can acquire a house unencumbered, although in a particular case, where assets permit and the relationship between the parties is such as to justify it, there might be such an obligation [McGrath v Eves [2005] NSWSC 1006]. Generally speaking, the community does not expect a parent to look after his or her children for the rest of their lives and into retirement, especially when there is someone else, such a spouse, who has a prime obligation to do so. Plainly, if an adult child remains a dependent of a parent, the community usually expects the parent to make provision to fulfil that ongoing dependency after death. But where a child, even an adult child, falls on hard times and where there are assets available, then the community may expect parents to provide a buffer against contingencies; and where a child has been unable to accumulate superannuation or make other provision for their retirement, something to assist in retirement where otherwise they would be left destitute. It is no longer the case, if it ever 95 McCosker v McCosker (1957) 97 CLR 566 at 571-572. 96 (1962) 107 CLR 9 at 19. 97 [2009] NSWSC 801 at [57]-[58]. -- 27 of 31 -- [2026] SASC 82 Kourakis CJ 26 was, that an adult child has to establish a special need before obtaining provision from the estate of a deceased parent. 136 In Megerditchian v Khatchadourian,98 Payne JA took a similar view: Vanoush submitted at first instance (and submits now) that she is entitled to modest secure permanent accommodation, payment of significant present debts and a fund for contingencies. The primary judge was correct in rejecting this submission. On my understanding of community expectations, they do not include an expectation that a parent, in ordinary circumstances, should provide to an adult child (much less an adult child in her seventies) unencumbered accommodation in a suburb of that child’s choosing. The asserted existence of such a community expectation was not established. 137 In this State, Doyle J in Tiburzi v Butler,99 summarised the applicable principles: It is accepted that the concept of ‘advancement in life’ extends to a person’s adult years. Thus, for example, where an adult child of a testator falls on hard times, and where there are assets available, it may be proper to provide for a buffer against contingencies, including a lack of superannuation funds. Similarly, an adult child’s lack of reserves to meet the demands of advancing years, particularly of ill health, is a relevant consideration. (Footnotes omitted) 138 Those authorities make it clear that the general rule that testators are not expected to house their adult children, may give way if the child is particularly vulnerable to adverse contingencies. Stage 1 – Has Linda been left without adequate provision? 139 I observe at the outset that I regard several of the issues joined on factual circumstances as little more than breezes in a thimble. The unseemly squabble over staying in the Farne Terrace home signifies nothing. 140 The focus of Ian and, to some extent, Graeme on where Linda and Pauline slept reflects an understanding about the significance of sexual intimacy for a relationship’s longevity, which has never been universally valid. I accept the evidence of Pauline and Linda about the evolution of their relationship. It is not at all surprising given the age at which they met, their current ages, and their different personalities and family commitments. Like many relationships, it may well change again and come to be no more. 141 The provision for Linda’s maintenance was inadequate. Linda had no substantive employment and, on the medical evidence, poor prospects of obtaining any. She had no real property of her own, limited other assets and negligible superannuation. She has no realistic capacity to accumulate provision for her later years. Linda’s position is the product of the poorly paid nature of the artistic endeavours which were her passion, and her undisciplined financial management 98 [2020] NSWCA 229 at [62]. 99 [2017] SASCFC 89 at [72]. -- 28 of 31 -- [2026] SASC 82 Kourakis CJ 27 which may well reflect her psychological conditions. No moral judgement falls to be made here. The course of her life led her into circumstances of great need. Her accommodation depends entirely upon her continuing relationship with Pauline. Thpse circumstances existed at the time of the deceased’s passing and for many years before. It was reasonably foreseeable that they would continue. 142 Moreover, Linda finds herself at a very vulnerable stage of her life. As the years progress, finding accommodation suitable to her age and psychological condition will become more difficult. If the relationship with Pauline breaks down, Linda will be particularly vulnerable. I place little weight on the possibility of Family Law Act inheritance claims against Pauline’s property. 143 If it had not already occurred to Pauline to take protective measures, it is likely to have been considered by now. 144 Against that background, the provision made for Linda by the Will was not insubstantial. She received a waterfront allotment, an appreciating asset then worth some $215,000; a parcel of shares then worth some $84,000; and a one-third share of residue. Taken together, that was about a quarter of the estate. 145 But the adequacy of provision is not measured by its amount alone; it is measured against the applicant’s proper maintenance in the circumstances. The Wallaroo allotment, although valuable, is vacant land. It affords Linda no accommodation and no income. The shares are volatile and yield little. The deceased, who knew of Linda’s circumstances, made no provision that secured for her either a home or an adequate liquid buffer against the foreseeable contingency that her accommodation with Pauline might one day end. In order to adequately provide for Linda’s maintenance, greater provision should have been made for that contingency. 146 Having regard to the totality of evidence, and balancing Linda’s personal circumstances against the size and nature of the estate, her relationship with the deceased, her ability to sustain meaningful employment, her capacity for self-reliance and her dependence on the relationship with Pauline for maintenance, notwithstanding the deference to be allowed to the deceased’s assessment, I am satisfied that adequate provision was not made for Linda’s proper maintenance and advancement. As such, I find that Linda has been left without adequate provision. In so finding, I have not had regard to Linda’s voluntary assumption of a moral obligation to repay Pauline. Stage 2 – The discretionary question 147 Having determined that adequate provision has not been made, the task is to determine what provision ought to be made, and what should be proportioned from the estate. The jurisdictional question is a question of fact, which requires an evaluative judgment, and involves an objective assessment of all the circumstances in the case and a determination of whether, in fact, adequate provision has been made for an applicant. I approach this assessment having regard to the freedom of -- 29 of 31 -- [2026] SASC 82 Kourakis CJ 28 testamentary disposition, in the context of the Act, by not varying the terms of the Will any more than is necessary to provide adequately for the maintenance of Linda. In assessing that buffer, I take into account: • Linda’s present age and life expectancy; • her Disability Support Pension and her eligibility for Commonwealth rental assistance; • the cost of securing modest rental accommodation in the relevant areas of Adelaide and in Port Pirie, as set out in the post-reservation submissions referred to above; • the cost of securing modest accommodation in the relevant suburbs, as established by the Property Edge data (sourced from Land Services SA) produced pursuant to the post-reservation orders. That data, drawn from recorded sales over the twelve months to 11 September 2025, discloses the following median purchase prices for one-bedroom residential properties: in the outer northern metropolitan suburbs of Adelaide – $450,000 (59 sales); in the outer southern metropolitan suburbs – $413,750 (72 sales); and in the outer western metropolitan suburbs – approximately $415,000. The data for Port Pirie, drawn from a three-year sample by reason of the smaller volume of sales, discloses a median of $128,500 (20 sales). Weekly rent data for Marion and Oaklands Park discloses medians of approximately $213 and $250 per week for one-bedroom units. • I have also had regard to the respondents’ calculation that a capital sum of $550,000 invested at 5 per cent would yield approximately $28,139 per annum gross, or $26,549 net after income tax, providing a weekly income of approximately $510, which is adequate to meet rent at the prevailing market rates in the relevant suburbs; the ongoing costs of living, including for her medical condition; • Linda’s own stated preparedness, in her evidence, to make do with collective or assisted housing if necessary; and • the fact that Linda retains the Wallaroo Property and the shares as a primary asset base. 148 I take judicial notice, informed by the publications referred to above, that the risk of homelessness amongst older single women, and its associated hardships, has increased in Australia in recent times. The heightened risk has attracted the attention of government policy makers. Linda is personally vulnerable because she has few assets and by reason of her psychological condition. -- 30 of 31 -- [2026] SASC 82 Kourakis CJ 29 149 Balancing those matters, I am satisfied that further provision in the order of $150,000 is appropriate. That sum provides, in conjunction with the existing devises, a sufficient additional contingency so that Linda is not left to rely solely upon the continued availability of Pauline’s home and has a buffer for future adverse contingencies as she ages. 150 As at date of death of the deceased, the value of the shares was $44,000. Later, the value of those shares increased. At the time the deceased died, their value was $84,000. At the date of judgment, the value was $46,000. 151 Linda does not lack accommodation in the immediate term, but requires further provision against the contingency that her accommodation with Pauline may end, and against the ordinary contingencies of advancing age and ill health, against which she has been unable to create a buffer. The provision necessary to remedy the inadequacy is the provision for that purpose. It does not extend to ensuring that Linda has the financial resources to purchase a home unencumbered. The authorities correctly emphasise that it is not the community’s expectation that parents or guardians will house their adult children. However, that general proposition does not, in an appropriate case and in accordance with the statutory test, deny an exercise of the power to make additional provision so that the fundamental human need for shelter and safety is adequately provided for. 152 I have regard to both the difficulty Linda may have securing accommodation and also to the prospect that, by reason of her personality and psychological conditions, she may need to change accommodation from time to time. I also have regard to adverse health contingencies and to the additional difficulty Linda will have in securing quality aged care when the time comes. 153 Consistently with the object of disturbing the Will as little as possible, the further provision is to be made out of the residuary estate, and the specific devises of the Wallaroo property, Moonta Bay property and Cape Jervis properties are to remain undisturbed. Conclusion 154 For the above reasons, I order that further provision of $150,000 be made for Linda Marie Paterson out of the residue of the estate of the deceased, in the manner described above. To the extent that the residuary estate proves insufficient to meet the sum ordered, I will hear the parties as to the manner in which the balance may be raised, and on the question of costs. -- 31 of 31 --