- with Senior Company Executives and HR
- in United States
- with readers working within the Law Firm industries
Estate disputes are rarely just about money. They surface decades of family history, competing loyalties, and painful unresolved grievance. What begins as a question about who inherits a house can quickly become a contest over who cared, who contributed, and who is owed a moral debt.
We examine three Queensland court decisions handed down in 2025 to offer a revealing window into how courts approach these disputes today. Whether you are drawing up your own estate plan, administering a deceased estate, or considering a challenge to a will, these cases contain lessons that are hard to ignore.
Case 1: When an Equal Split Leaves a Surviving Spouse Without Security
Morris v Morris [2025] QSC 7 | Supreme Court of Queensland, January 2025
Douglas Morris died in June 2023, survived by his wife Jo-Anne and his adult daughter Karen from a previous marriage. He left a will that, after a small charitable gift, divided his estate equally between the two women who had claims on his affection - a gesture that might seem fair at first glance.
It was not.
Jo-Anne was 70 years old. The couple had been married for nearly 40 years. They had lived together in the family home at Ningi, Queensland, for over two decades. The home was registered in Douglass name and valued at approximately $1 million, representing the bulk of an estate worth around $1.18 million. Outside the estate, Jo-Anne's assets amounted to roughly $22,000 in savings and $184,000 in superannuation. She received an aged pension of about $1,000 a fortnight and did casual work to supplement her income. She had health conditions, including one requiring surgery.
Under the will as written, Jo-Anne would receive approximately $600,000 (half the estate) but no guaranteed right to remain in the home she had lived in for more than 20 years. The Court found that fell short of adequate provision.
"Although Douglas's intention may have been to equally - and therefore he might have thought fairly - distribute his estate between the two persons with claims upon it, the provision made in the will for Jo-Anne is rendered inadequate."
Justice Hindman identified five factors that rendered the provision inadequate:
- Jo-Anne's age,
- her limited assets,
- her near-retirement status,
- her restricted income, and
- her health concerns.
The parties had already reached a settlement, and the Court endorsed it: Jo-Anne received an 85% interest in the home with a 10-year right to reside, the household chattels outright, and a fixed costs contribution of $24,000 from the estate.
Key Takeaway: Equality is not always equity. A will that splits an estate evenly may still leave a surviving spouse inadequately provided for, particularly where the family home is the main asset and the spouse has limited independent means. Courts look at need, not just arithmetic.
Case 2: The High Cost of Self-Dealing - What Happens When Executors Help Themselves
Harrison v Cox (No. 2) [2025] QSC 205 | Supreme Court of Queensland, August 2025
Raymond Paunovic died in October 2023, leaving a straightforward will: sell the house at Laidley, pay the expenses, and divide what remains equally between his daughter Renee Harrison and two close associates, Steven Cox and Sharon Turner.
Mr Cox and Ms Turner were appointed executors. They were also beneficiaries. That dual role - executor and beneficiary - is not unusual and is not inherently problematic. What followed, however, was.
Renee Harrison indicated she intended to challenge the validity of the will and filed a family provision application in July 2024. Rather than pause and seek legal clarity, Cox and Turner transferred the estate's primary asset: the house, worth between $540,000 and $560,000 - first to themselves as trustees, and then to themselves personally as beneficial owners. No money reached the estate. The transfer was registered in September 2024 while Ms Harrison's application was still pending.
Ms Harrison's solicitors wrote an open letter offering a straightforward resolution: resign as executors, consent to the appointment of a specialist succession law administrator, and no costs order would be sought against them personally. Cox and Turner declined.
The Court removed them as executors, declared the transfer a breach of trust, and held that their interest in the house was held on constructive trust for the new administrator. On the question of costs, the outcome for Cox and Turner was severe.
Ms Harrison's costs were ordered to be paid from the estate on an indemnity basis. Cox and Turner were stripped of their right of indemnity from the estate for their own legal costs. And they were ordered to personally reimburse the estate for Ms Harrison's costs (to be met from their share of the residue).
"The application was necessary because, in breach of trust, the primary asset of the estate was transferred to Mr Cox and Ms Turner personally. Those costs could easily have been avoided."
The Court acknowledged that Cox and Turner claimed to have acted on legal advice and in good faith, and that they faced genuine financial hardship. Those factors softened the mechanics of enforcement - costs were to come from their residuary share rather than out-of-pocket - but did not change the outcome.
Key Takeaway: Executors who are also beneficiaries must be scrupulously careful. Their duty runs to the estate and all beneficiaries, not to themselves. Transferring estate assets to themselves in the face of a pending challenge was a serious breach, and refusing a reasonable settlement offer made the personal costs consequences unavoidable. Take legal advice early, and take reasonable offers seriously.
Case 3: Deliberately Left Out - Can an Adult Child Succeed After Receiving Substantial Lifetime Gifts?
Madjeric v Madjeric [2025] QDC 126 | District Court of Queensland, September 2025
This is, in many ways, the most complex of the three cases, and the most instructive about the limits of a testator's wishes.
Bernadina Simona Cia died in February 2023 aged 96. Her younger son Eric received nothing under her final will. In fact, the testator went further than simply omitting him - she signed a statutory declaration stating that Eric had already received more than his fair share during her lifetime, and accusing him of misusing funds while acting as her attorney.
The facts supported part of that narrative. Between 2013 and 2020, the testator had given Eric approximately $405,000, including a $300,000 gift that began as a loan when Eric's business investment collapsed. Eric was 69, retired due to chronic spinal injuries sustained in a military accident, and dependent on his wife as a full-time carer. His financial position, while not desperate, contained little buffer against the contingencies of life.
His elder brother Lou, who inherited everything of substance, was significantly wealthier. He had combined net assets of nearly $2.9 million across Australia and the United Kingdom, including investment properties and cash reserves.
The central question for the Judge was whether the testator's expressed reasons for disinheritance could be taken at face value. The answer was nuanced.
The Court accepted that the testator had a documented tendency to accuse people of theft, including Lou himself, as well as cleaners and friends, without proper foundation. The statutory declaration, made after a meeting at which Lou was present, was viewed sceptically. The Court found it likely that the testator had accepted Lou's account of events, and that she would not have reached the same conclusions if she had known and properly appreciated all the circumstances.
The Court also found that the apparent estrangement in the final two years of the testator's life was not straightforward. Eric had been excluded from Lou's property and found it difficult to make contact, but had maintained regular phone contact and visited when his mother was in respite care. Lou admitted he had restricted access because he did not trust Eric, an attitude he extended even to Eric's children, preventing them from visiting their dying grandmother.
"There are no rigid rules: the question whether adequate provision has been made for the proper maintenance and support of the adult son must depend on all the circumstances."
The Court found that adequate provision had not been made and awarded Eric $250,000 from an estate with a net value in the vicinity of $870,000.
Key Takeaway: A testator's expressed reasons for disinheritance are not automatically determinative. Courts look at the full picture: the entire arc of the relationship, the applicant's genuine need, the relative circumstances of all parties, and whether the testator's stated reasoning holds up to scrutiny. Substantial lifetime gifts reduce the strength of a claim but do not necessarily defeat it, particularly where there is genuine ongoing need.
What These Decisions Mean for You
Taken together, these three cases reinforce themes that run through Queensland estate litigation - but in ways that are instructive for anyone involved in estate planning or administration today.
If you are drafting your estate plan:
- A will that divides assets equally may still be found inadequate. Think carefully about each beneficiary's actual circumstances, not just a desire to appear fair.
- Lifetime gifts are relevant, but courts will assess need at the time of death. Prior generosity reduce, but rarely eliminates a successful claim.
- The reasons you give for disinheriting someone matter, but courts will scrutinise them. Statutory declarations and file notes can be challenged.
If you are administering an estate:
- Your duty is to the estate and all beneficiaries - not to yourself, even if you are also a beneficiary.
- Do not transfer or deal with estate assets in ways that could prejudice pending claims without specific legal advice.
- A reasonable settlement offer, refused, can have severe personal costs consequences.
If you are considering a family provision claim:
- Your need, assessed at the time of the hearing, is central. Courts look forward as well as back.
- The totality of the relationship matters, including the reasons for any estrangement and who was responsible for it.
- Early legal advice gives you the best chance of resolving a dispute without protracted litigation.
Estate disputes are among the most emotionally demanding legal proceedings a family can face. The decisions above show that Queensland courts approach them with care for human complexity, but also with firm expectations about how executors behave and what provision the law requires. Getting early, specialist advice is the most effective step any party can take, whether you are sitting down to write a will or standing at the beginning of a dispute.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
