## Facts

- George Lambeff had one daughter from his first marriage and later formed a separate family unit with a partner, having two sons, Nicholas and Christopher.
- After separating from the daughter’s mother when the daughter was about ten, George ceased meaningful contact and provided no financial support.
- The daughter made periodic attempts over the years to re-establish contact, but received no response.
- George executed a will in March 1988; he died in March 1989 and probate was granted in November 1989.
- The will left the bulk of the estate, including a caravan park business and related assets, to the two sons and made no provision for the daughter.
- The estate was relatively modest; the sons had limited assets, had families to support, and depended on the business for their livelihood after years of working in it for low pay with an expectation of future inheritance.
- The daughter was an adult with a secure, well-paid job, substantial equity in her home, and no dependents.

## Issues

1. Whether excluding an adult daughter from her father’s will left her “without adequate provision for [her] proper maintenance, education or advancement in life” under the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act 1972 (SA).
2. How the court should weigh moral obligation arising from parental abandonment against the applicant’s financial security and the competing needs of beneficiaries dependent on a modest estate.
3. Whether “advancement in life” can include opportunities and support denied earlier in life, rather than only current financial need.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of South Australia granted the daughter a modest monetary provision from the estate (commonly reported as about $20,000).
- The court held that total exclusion was not “adequate provision” in the circumstances, given the deceased’s abandonment and failure to support the daughter.
- The court limited the award to avoid materially impairing the sons’ ability to maintain the business that supported their families.

## Legal Principles

- “Proper maintenance, education or advancement in life” requires an evaluative judgment based on all circumstances, including estate size, the applicant’s position, kinship, and competing claims.
- Adequacy of provision is not determined solely by present financial need; moral obligations arising from the parent-child relationship may justify provision for a financially secure adult child.
- “Advancement in life” may extend to disadvantages and lost opportunities attributable to earlier parental neglect.
- Where the estate is modest and primary beneficiaries are economically dependent on estate assets, any order should be calibrated to recognize the applicant’s claim without undermining those beneficiaries’ reasonable needs.
- Discretionary refusal for disentitling conduct depends on the applicant’s character or conduct; absence of such conduct supports relief.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a limited lump-sum provision for an adult daughter who had been abandoned and entirely excluded from her father’s will, treating the father’s moral default as making the will inadequate while keeping the award small to protect dependent beneficiaries and a modest estate.


Lambeff v. Farmers Co-operative Executors & Trustees Ltd., 56 S. Austl. St. Rep. 323 (S. Austl. 1991)