31 Mar 2026
Wills & Estates
D-I-Y wills: More like, D-I-Why on earth did I do that?
In Crothers v Cahill [2025] WASC 478, the Supreme Court of Western Australia considered an application under s 6(1) of the Family Provision Act 1972 (WA) by Vanda Crothers (Ms Crothers), the de facto partner of the late Robin Geoffrey Tarrant. The case highlights the Court’s willingness to uphold negotiated outcomes between family members, that reflect the evolving nature of modern relationships and estate planning.
Background
Ms Crothers and the deceased had been in a continuous de facto relationship from early 2015 until his death in July 2024. They jointly owned and renovated a property in Bunbury, and Ms Crothers had made significant financial contributions, including a $170,000 mortgage reduction. Under the deceased’s will, she was granted a right to reside in the property for 10 years, after which it would pass to his three children equally.
On 19 August 2024 probate was granted to one of the deceased’s children, Ms Cahill as appointed executrix pursuant to the will.
Believing this provision inadequate, Ms Crothers commenced proceedings seeking further provision from the estate.
On 21 July 2025, the beneficiaries to the will, being the parties to the proceedings, signed a deed of settlement and release (Deed). The Deed provides that, in return for Ms Crothers paying a nominal amount to the deceased’s estate, that she would receive the 50% share of the property from the deceased estate.
Legal framework
In order to determine the matter, Justice Whitby applied a two-stage test under s6(1) of the Family Provision Act:
- Jurisdictional Threshold – Whether the will failed to make adequate provision for the applicant’s proper maintenance and support; and
- Discretionary Stage – If so, what provision ought to be made.
The Court considered factors such as the applicant’s age (64 years old) and her remaining work life is diminishing, health (including she suffered from diabetes and vision impairment), financial position, and the nature of her relationship with the deceased.
The Court ruled that the terms of the will did not provide adequately for Ms Crothers and agreed with the terms of the provisions of the agreement were fair and provided adequate provision and financial security.
Take aways
De Facto rights were affirmed: The case reinforces that where a de facto partner is not adequately provided for in an estate, that they should be entitled to meaningful provision, particularly where they have made substantial contributions to shared assets.
Flexibility in Courts Discretion: The decision shows the Court’s pragmatic approach to balancing competing interests, beneficiary negotiations and historical contributing factors in modest estates.
Lavan comment
If you’re in or have been in a de facto relationship and facing challenges with estate administration, particularly where disagreements arise, know that support is available. My team and I focus on guiding clients through probate disputes, working to achieve fair outcomes and ensuring every estate is managed in line with the law.
Disclaimer
The information contained in this publication does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. You should seek legal advice in relation to any particular matter you may have before relying or acting on this information. The Lavan team are here to assist.
Stay up to date with Lavan
Subscribe to Publications
"*" indicates required fields