Family Provision Claims by Domestic Partners– What is Adequate Provision?

Claims for further provision from a deceased's estate are frequently being brought by domestic partners. However, simply being in a domestic partnership does not guarantee a favourable outcome. The court will consider various factors, including the nature of the relationship with the deceased, the size of the estate, and the claimant's financial needs. In the recent decision of Lennan v Chao [2025] VSC 220, the Supreme Court of Victoria dismissed a claim brought by a domestic partner for further provision from the estate of his deceased partner.

Lennan v Chao [2025] VSC 220 -' Summary of facts

Ms Chao (the deceased) died on 1 July 2022, aged 45. The deceased's final Will dated 11 March 2022 provided that her superannuation death benefit in the sum of $378,164.89' be paid to her partner Mr Lennan and the remainder of her $2.8 million estate was to be distributed between her two siblings. Mr Lennan argued this was insufficient and sought further provision from the deceased's estate. He asserted that he and the deceased had been in a long-term domestic relationship' and that he had financially and emotionally supported her throughout. There was no dispute that Mr Lennan was the deceased's domestic partner and therefore he was eligible to bring a claim for further provision from the estate. The focus of the proceeding was whether the distribution of the deceased's estate failed to make adequate provision for Mr Lennan's proper maintenance and support. In determining whether further provision should be made for Mr Lennan, the Court considered the following factors: ' Length and nature of the relationship: The Court looked at when cohabitation began, shared financial obligations, emotional support, and how they presented as a couple publicly. Mr Lennan submitted that he was the deceased's life partner since 2011. This was disputed by the deceased's siblings who argued that it was a very short domestic relationship and that it was only since March 2019 that Mr Lennan and the deceased had the character of a domestic relationship. The Court stated that the length of a relationship is indeed a relevant matter in the circumstances of the case and therefore it is appropriate to determine when the domestic partnership commenced. ' Financial needs of the claimant: The Court considered Mr Lennan's financial position and found that he was employed and well qualified to work as a solution architect with good remuneration, he was in good health, and financially independent, and thus not in need of further support. ' Size and composition of the estate: While the estate was substantial, it was not considered "large" in the context of previous cases, and the Court considered that the deceased had made significant provision by the superannuation distribution. ' Moral duty of the deceased: The test is not what the Court would have done, but whether the deceased failed in her moral duty' to make proper provision.

Court's Decision

The Court was not satisfied that the distribution of the deceased's estate failed to make adequate provision for Mr Lennan's proper maintenance and support. The Court found that Mr Lennan did not meet the required threshold' for further provision. The decision turned on two critical issues:

1. The duration and nature of the relationship '€“ The Court was not satisfied that a genuine, long-term domestic relationship existed from 2011. Rather, it found the relationship likely began around 2016, and was not marked by mutual commitment or shared finances' to the extent claimed.
2. Adequate provision already made' '€“ The Court held that the deceased had fulfilled her moral duty' to Mr Lennan by nominating him as the beneficiary of her superannuation. Given the nature of their relationship and the size of the estate, no additional provision was warranted.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed Mr Lennan's application for family provision, concluding that the deceased had made adequate provision for him, and there were no factors warranting an order for further provision.

Key takeaways

This case is a strong reminder that not all domestic partners will succeed in family provision claims' '€“ particularly where the relationship is short, poorly evidenced, or where adequate provision has already been made. It also reinforces that courts will closely scrutinise the evidence of domestic partnership, and are not bound to accept an applicant's version of events if unsupported by objective evidence. If you are considering bringing a claim, we can assist you and advise you on the prospects of making an application. Contact Hunt & Hunt's experienced' Wills & Estates lawyers' today to discuss on 03 8602 9202 or at' [email protected].