Terracall and Associates acted for the Applicant in a successful application brought pursuant to the Testator’s Family Maintenance Act 1912 (Tas). The decision in Muhl v Bailey [2025] TASSC 24 provides a clear illustration of the Court’s approach to adult child claims where a Will fails to make adequate provision for proper maintenance and support.
The Applicant was an adult daughter of the deceased and therefore an eligible applicant pursuant to s 3A of the Act. The proceedings were brought against the executor of the estate, who defended the deceased’s testamentary dispositions.
The deceased’s Will made provision for other beneficiaries, but left Ms Muhl without any provision.
The Court applied the orthodox two‑stage approach articulated in Singer v Berghouse and consistently applied in Tasmania. That was:
- Whether the applicant had been left without adequate provision for her proper maintenance and support; and
- If so, what provision ought to be made, having regard to all relevant circumstances.
Importantly, the Court reaffirmed that the Act is concerned with maintenance and support, not fairness, equal division, or the vindication of expectations.
The Court examined the Applicant’s personal and financial circumstances, including her income, assets, liabilities, and future needs. The Court also considered the nature of the relationship between the Applicant and the deceased, including periods of estrangement and reconciliation, and the extent to which those matters explained (or failed to explain) the deceased’s testamentary choices.
The Court was not persuaded that the absence of provision for the Applicant was justified on the evidence. While the deceased had given reasons for the distribution of the estate, the Court found that those reasons did not adequately address the Applicant’s ongoing need for support when assessed objectively at the date of death.
The Court therefore concluded that the Applicant had been left without adequate provision within the meaning of the Act.
Discretionary Provision
Having crossed the statutory threshold, the Court turned to the discretionary stage. In doing so, it considered:
- the size and composition of the estate;
- the claims and circumstances of other beneficiaries;
- the Applicant’s current and future financial position; and
- the extent to which an order could be made without unfairly prejudicing other legitimate claims.
The Court emphasised that adult children are not required to demonstrate destitution, but must show a real need for maintenance and support when viewed in light of contemporary community standards.
The Court ultimately determined that provision should be made for the Applicant and ordered that she receive provision from the estate sufficient to meet her proper maintenance and support.
The Applicant was successful in her Testator’s Family Maintenance claim. The Court made orders in her favour, altering the distribution of the estate to reflect the deceased’s unfulfilled moral obligation to her as an eligible family member.
Practical Significance
The decision in Muhl v Bailey reinforces several well‑established but frequently litigated principles in Tasmanian estate litigation:
- An adult child may succeed notwithstanding estrangement or limited contact with the deceased, where the objective circumstances demonstrate unmet need.
- Testamentary explanations are relevant but not determinative; the Court’s task is evaluative, not deferential.
- The adequacy of provision is assessed against present‑day standards of maintenance and support, not the deceased’s subjective views.
Terracall and Associates regularly acts in contested estate matters and Testator’s Family Maintenance claims.