Evans v Evans

HIS HONOUR: The timeless and engaging beauty of L.M. Montgomery’s fictional debut ‘Anne of Green Gables’ [1] speaks poignantly of the disappointments, hope, tragedies and joy of family life and serves to illustrate in a simple way two aspects of family provision settlements. Firstly, the diversity of who may constitute a family (e.g. two middle-aged siblings adopt a child), [2] and secondly, the dignity of preference of individuals’ names and their spelling (e.g. Anne – “spelled with an e”). [3]

Colin Norman Evans (deceased) died on 26 February 2024. The plaintiff is one of his children and the defendant is the deceased's wife from his last marriage in September 2016. The deceased left a Will dated 4 July 2023 by which he left his estate to the defendant. Probate has not been sought as there is minimal estate. Part of the balance of a superannuation pension account is sought to be designated as notional estate.

‘Family’ [4] is one of those words in which context is especially important in understanding the reach of persons included when used. Quintessentially for that reason, the family provision practitioner must be cognisant of the range of persons who may qualify as eligible persons and the importance of properly identifying those persons by name to the Court.

Both of those aspects come to the fore in this claim involving the deceased’s estate.

First, the deceased was the common link with eligible persons in several family households. Sadly, he died aged 62, almost 20 years below the current average for Australian males. [5] Throughout his life, he married 4 times. Detail of the deceased’s first marriage was only discernible from a death certificate which in itself contained no indication of the deceased’s age at his first 3 marriages (noting that whether the marriages were of minimal or other duration bears relevance to notice dispensing orders).

Initial settlement documentation in the matter lacked proof that any of the deceased’s 3 prior spouses had been served with a Notice of Claim and did not seek dispensation from that requirement, [6] leading to a requisition to address the issue. Practically speaking, the preparation and provision of a family tree diagram would have assisted both the Court in expeditiously reviewing the materials to consider approving the proposed settlement of the claim and also the parties in identifying the prior spouses in addressing notification requirements.

Secondly, as there were quite a few instances of varied spelling of names within the family in the evidentiary materials (‘Jesse’ and ‘Jessie’, ‘Johny’ and Johnny’, ‘Lisa Maree’ and ‘Lisa-Maree’) which required checking, it seemed prudent to check spelling of other family names including the plaintiff’s first name ‘Jordyn’ to ensure accuracy.

Onomastics suggest the plaintiff’s first name ‘Jordyn’ is a variant of ‘Jordan’, a name of Hebrew origin referring to the River Jordan and meaning ‘flowing down’. [7] There are many other variants, including ‘Jorden’, ‘Jordon’, and ‘Jordin’. Naturally, the choice of ‘Jordyn’s’ name may have little or nothing to do with the onomastic origin. Nonetheless, as will be seen below, the existence of other variants is a factor compelling vigilance in checking and correctly spelling ‘Jordyn’s’ name.

This claim provides a convenient vehicle for highlighting, for the benefit of the profession, the utility of provision of family tree diagrams and importance of specification of proper names.

None of what follows is in any way critical of the legal practitioners who have, consequent upon requisitions, acted very appropriately to facilitate the finalisation of the matter. Commendably, they have assisted the Court.

In any litigation, there is a core of essential information which parties will need to provide to the court to successfully claim or defend relief. Family provision claims are no different.

In New South Wales, from the inception of the family provision legislation in 1916 until recently, the basic content of information provided by parties in family provision claims has been unprescribed.

Initially, lawyers intuited the necessary information and drafted affidavits and presented materials to the Court accordingly. Obvious content included some details about the deceased, the estate and the applicant. Having regard to the limited range of eligible persons in family provision claims until 1983, often it was unnecessary for parties to provide the Court with detail regarding persons not within the so-called ‘nuclear family’. [8]

From September 1983, the expansion of the categories of applicants and the increasing number of claims by eligible applicants raised at least a practical question as to how information regarding the deceased’s network of relationships (relationship detail) would be provided.

The requirements regarding notification and the definition of ‘eligible person’ is contained in the principal legislation and rules bearing upon family provision proceedings. [9] Specifically, Notices of Claim are required to be served on 5 categories of persons, [10] which broadly cover (a) persons who are eligible persons (incontestably or plausibly so); [11] and (b) beneficiaries. [12]

Principally, the relationship detail has been provided to the Court by affidavit evidence and occasionally by other means (e.g. family tree diagrams, by email or orally to the Court).

Historically, judges have made comments regarding the content of family provision affidavits [13] and Practice Texts provided some indication as to content. [14] However, until June 2009, there was no official Court guidance as to forms of family provision affidavits. Then, the Court, by Practice Note, [15] introduced a plaintiff’s pro forma affidavit and specified detail to be included in the administrator’s affidavit.

The pro forma affidavit, whilst expressly prompting the plaintiff to identify his or her category of eligibility, did not expressly envisage that relationship detail of other persons in the deceased’s sphere would be identified by reference to eligibility.

In the 15-year period between June 2009 and June 2024, plaintiffs’ family provision affidavits were not marked by uniformity in drafting styles. Different forms of affidavits were provided to the Court, including those which are:

Sometimes, the affidavits provided by family provision applicants contain misplaced focus and provide, perhaps cathartically, much material articulating historical grievances, long-standing frustrations, complaints or perceived injustices within the family and insufficient material identifying family members.

Administrators’ affidavits have had more uniformity. The Family Provision Practice Notes, in describing its content, expressly reflect the notification requirements under the Supreme Court Rules to name and prove service on certain persons.

However, up until June 2024 and even now, in a significant number of family provision cases, plaintiffs’ affidavits and administrators’ affidavits provide insufficient relationship detail (prescribed and otherwise) to enable the Court to readily comprehend people relevantly connected to the deceased for the family provision statutory purposes and to be satisfied that notification imperatives have been met.

Failure to either serve Notices of Claim on specified persons [17] or seek a dispensation from that requirement remains by far the main impediment to finalisation of ‘settled’ family provision claims, and former spouses are the main category of eligible persons administrators fail to serve. [18]

The abovementioned occasional provision of family tree diagrams was not formalised. When such a diagram was provided, [19] it operated essentially as an aide memoire.

Commencing on 17 June 2024, the pro forma affidavit in Practice Note SC Eq 7 (FP Practice Note) now specifies that relationship detail be provided in the form of a family tree diagram. [20]

The notion of a ‘family tree’ diagram is variously described in dictionaries. It includes "a genealogical chart showing the ancestry, descent, and relationship of the members of the family, as of people…". [21] Various other names are given to like diagrams, including ‘genealogy’, ‘pedigree’, and ‘line of descent charts’.

On occasion, more detailed charts are prepared, often known as ‘genograms’. [22] Whilst genograms are used in medical contexts or health services, they are also frequently provided in the Court’s work involving adoptions where lineage detail is often required.

Sometimes, unrevealed sources or lack of verifiable information in genograms in adoption cases may lead to the document being regarded as being unreliable [23] and heritage unable to be confirmed. [24] Nonetheless, a counsel of perfection is not necessarily required in relation to genograms. [25]

To date, affidavit evidence alone (at least by dint of the vagaries of drafting styles) has proved a poor means of elucidating the essential relationship detail to the Court.

In many affidavits, some relevant people are alluded to but are unidentified or not clearly identified. Other times, persons are referred to without a family name, obscuring their precise identities.

In such circumstances, upon reading the plaintiff's affidavit and other material on the file, the Family Provision List judge or registrars are left wondering, "Who is Bob or Heidi?”, “Is Cameron a sister or a brother?”, “Is Jonah a sibling or a child?”, “Bruce seems to have had a few marriages and partners - was there a marriage or divorce?” and “Is Stephanie (a former spouse) still alive?"

The sheer volume of family provision matters in which practitioners seek consent orders necessarily has the effect that Family Provision List judges and registrars are heavily reliant upon practitioners providing proposed orders in an orderly and readily comprehensible form, to enable the Court to be satisfied that a proposed settlement is appropriate and notification requirements are fulfilled: Jurak v Latham [26] and Liosatos. [27]

Whilst the phrase ‘family tree diagram’ readily conveys to most persons the type of diagram that is required, the purpose for its use in family provision claims (which I address below) self-evidently means that there may be persons nominated on the diagram whom some might not readily describe as being ‘family members’, but nonetheless are either incontestably eligible or plausibly eligible by reference to the statutory eligibility criteria.

Surprisingly and sadly, the provision of family tree diagrams is relatively rare. Nonetheless, it is a key aid to in effectively disposing of settled claims. This is not a case of compliance being "more honoured in the breach than in the observance". [28]

On the scant occasions the diagram is provided, the Court has been greatly assisted by very helpful diagrams which provide a good amount of detail. However, focus on the purpose of the diagram is vital. Striking the right balance of adequate detail to fulfil purpose is important.

Examples of polar opposites suffice to make the point. On one occasion, the plaintiff’s affidavit provided a family tree diagram with the barest of detail, depicting only the plaintiff and the deceased, despite other materials clearly indicating the existence of additional family members. At the other extreme, in a matter before me recently, each substituted beneficiary’s entitlement under the Will (which never came into effect) was included in the family tree diagram, represented by additional multi-coloured lines flowing from the deceased. Whilst it is helpful to summarise entitlements under a Will (particularly when not in dispute), it is equally valuable for practitioners to be mindful in providing a diagram that is easily comprehensible.

Family provision practice does not necessarily require superlative types of genograms that might be deployed in ‘next of kin’ inquiries or adoption cases where establishing entitlement and heritage respectively is a main issue.

To facilitate the just, quick and cheap disposition of orders in family provision claims, consistent with the overriding purpose of the rules, I set out below non-exhaustive comments regarding the preparation of family tree diagrams.

The context which led to the family tree diagram being introduced to the pro forma is outlined above.

Purposely, the change was intended to address the failure of parties to provide sufficient relationship detail to ensure that eligible persons were notified and also to facilitate Family Provision List judges and registrars dealing with large volumes of settlements to readily understand the deceased’s relationship network.

The purpose of the diagram is to show the relationships between the deceased and persons who are or may be eligible persons within the meaning of s 57 of the Succession Act. [29]

Beneficiaries (per se) under a Will or on intestacy [30] do not need to be listed on a family tree diagram. There are a few related reasons for that. First, empirically, administrators seem to be good at notifying beneficiaries of claims. Secondly, beneficiary information will be readily available from other essential materials. It will (or ought to) appear from the plaintiff’s affidavit in chief, the administrator’s affidavit and, in the case of settlements, the Settlement Checklist. [31] Thirdly, there may potentially be numerous beneficiaries and listing them all may crowd the diagram, defeating its purpose.

The precise content of the diagram engendered by the above purpose will necessarily vary from case to case. There are no prescribed forms of the diagram, and the Court will happily receive any diagram which fulfils the purpose. Consistent with the "just, quick and cheap” mandate, the document may be neatly hand drawn or generated through electronic aids or apps.

The Swedish word lagom, [32] meaning “just the right amount” or “not too much, not too little” signifies the level of detail that is helpful in a family tree diagram. It is said that the word lagom stems from an old form of ‘lag’ meaning relevantly “common sense law”. [33] A common sense approach to family tree diagrams will ensure that they contain the right amount of detail befitting their purpose.

It follows that the crucial information in the diagram should include nomination of the following persons:

In the case of grandchildren and members of the household of which the deceased was a member, there is additionally a requirement of dependency in whole or part on the deceased for them to be eligible, which I will address shortly. [39]

Relatedly to its aid to the Court, the utility of early consideration of preparation of a diagram and framing the diagram by reference to the above information is evident. It provides an immediate prompt to the practitioner of all the specified persons required to be served with Notices of Claim.

The reach of persons requiring notification may be emphasised by 5 observations.

First, since 15 June 2018, the reference to ‘spouse’ for family provision eligibility designates a legally married partner (at date of death and formerly). [40]

Secondly, de facto relationship eligibility [41] for family provision applications may be established at the date of death without the requirement that the relationship be in existence for a continuous period of 2 years or has resulted in the birth of a child. [42] It is therefore broader than the notion of a spouse for entitlement on intestacy. [43]

Thirdly, a former de facto partner of the deceased, though not qualifying as a former ‘spouse’, may qualify under dependent household member eligibility.

Fourthly, ‘dependent household member eligibility’ is not as onerous to establish as some might think. Briefly:

Fifthly, where there is any aspect of doubt about whether a person is eligible or not, persons who plausibly fulfil eligibility criteria should be included for the reasons elaborated in Jurak v Latham. [49] Principally, it is because the object of identification and notification is to cast a broad enough net to include eligibility contenders, rather than for the parties to arrogate to themselves decisive conclusion of the question of whether or not a person is eligible, which is a matter ultimately reserved for the Court. That is particularly so in circumstances in which, although a decision regarding eligibility is binary, it may well involve some degree of contestability, and some categories of eligibility in practice tend to be more contestable than others. [50]

Helpful additional information on the diagram includes:

For certain individuals on the diagram, particularly children, including the date of birth is helpful to enable the Court to make assessments, for example, as to whether they are able to receive a form of Notice of Claim or whether some other steps ought to be taken to appoint someone to act in the interests of the child or nominated to receive the notice on behalf of such child.

Four further matters ought to be borne in mind: timing, ingenuity, co-operation and consistency of information.

First, Practice Notes, whilst not having the status of an Act or rule of the Court, [52] are designed to provide a compass to guide the Court, the litigants, and the legal advisers, as to the general course that will usually be followed. They enable flexibility rather than have binding effect. [53]

The FP Practice Note pro forma affidavit was purposely designed to elicit, at an early stage, essential information necessary to enable determination of family provision claims and, further, to emphasise the economy with which that information is to be given to facilitate the just, quick and cheap resolution of real issues in the proceedings. [54] That now expressly includes the early preparation of family tree diagrams.

Secondly, effective preparation of family provision cases, as with advocacy, is facilitated by reducing the complex to the simple, the vague to the comprehensible, and the unconvincing to the persuasive. Practitioners are encouraged to use their ingenuity consistent with the above guides to prepare lagom family tree diagrams.

Thirdly, the fact that the FP Practice Note envisages plaintiffs as the party to provide the family tree diagram does not mean that co-operation from other parties is not expected. Details of family members for the purposes of the final hearing of the matter, and identification and location of persons to be served with Notices of Claim, is one of the types of evidence which in family provision claims transcend partisan interests. If the plaintiff has not provided such a family tree diagram, it is, nonetheless, of assistance to the Court for the defendant to provide such a diagram. Co-operation by all parties in respect of this non-partisan task is not merely expected but more fundamentally helpful to the Court.

Fourthly, it is apparent that details on family tree diagrams that have been provided to the Court are at times inconsistent with other details drawn from the affidavit evidence. Practitioners should check details on such diagrams and, in the case of any inconsistencies, clarify the position either prior to finalising the diagram or later if the diagram has been finalised.

A ‘name’ is a word or a combination of words by which (relevantly) a person is designated or known. [55] Its function in being sufficiently important to justify individual singling out constitutes the name as being a ‘proper noun’. [56]

Ordinarily, in Australia, people have what is described as a first name (otherwise known as ‘given name’, ‘personal name’, ‘forename’, ‘birth name’, ‘Christian name’ [57] or (if listed after the surname) ‘other name’) and a last name (otherwise known as a ‘surname’ or ‘family name’). People may also have a middle name or names. First and middle names are usually assigned by the parent or parents of a child shortly after birth [58] but may come into existence by other means. Historically, Australian naming convention has followed English or European convention commonly known as the ‘western order’. [59] Thus, in general parlance and Australian society, in contrast to the ‘eastern order’, [60] names are conventionally arranged in the order of a first name, middle names (if any) and last names. [61] However, for certain formal purposes, some statutory provisions and policies may give rise to variations of that order, e.g. in Passports.

A ‘surname’ is the “name which a person has in common with the other members of their family, as distinguished from a Christian or first name; family name; last name”. [62] Under Australian common law, a surname is founded in use and reputation. Generally, children acquire a surname through his or her parents’ acts and the assumption of others that the convention of hereditary family name applies. [63]

Despite the range of terminology for first and last names, the current formal Australian Government Style Manual indicates that to avoid cultural or gender bias when referring to parts of names, preferred terminology is ‘given name’ instead of ‘Christian name’, ‘family name’ instead of ‘surname’ and ‘previous names’ instead of ‘maiden name’. [64]

Names are important. Further still, the correct spelling and pronunciation of names is important. Recently this has been recognised by the Chief Justice of New South Wales issuing a Practice Note dealing with the pronunciation of names and forms of address. [65] That was first issued on 12 April 2024 (commencing on 22 April 2024), applying to proceedings from that commencement date and has recently been updated by a reissued Practice Note (NAP Practice Note) [66] on 18 August 2025 (commencing 25 August 2025). The NAP Practice Note expressly contains amendments acknowledging the cultural sensitivity around naming and depicting deceased First Nations people and provides guidance on respectful references to deceased First Nations people, including the use of preferred names and the handling of images or depictions in court proceedings.

The precise shade of meaning that a court attributes to the word ‘name’ can depend on the litigious context in which the court is deciding what is a person’s ‘name’, being a question of law, [67] but whether a person has a name, in that shade of meaning, is then a question of fact not dependent on any legal authority. [68]

Whilst the designation and use of names is virtually essential to the functioning of law and within litigation, there are, comparatively speaking, few cases [69] and texts [70] which deal specifically with the existence, use and change of first names and last names.

Naming convention often accords importance to the name that a person prefers to use. However, as explained above, it is important to understand the litigious context in which the Court is dealing with the matter. Thus, for certain legislative purposes, for example under the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW) (Adoption Act), the ‘given name’ of a child is a name conferred on a child but not necessarily either officially conferred or recognised by the child as referring to him or her. [71]

It is helpful to the Court if parties provide the proper name of a person and signal where there may be potential variations of the spelling of a name, nicknames or other associated names. The importance of appropriate specification of a name (including the use of full names) for family provision purposes is at least threefold.

First, it accords dignity to the individual. It is respectful and polite when using names to ask a person which name they prefer. [72]

Secondly, there is frequently variation in the nomination and spelling of names of a person, not merely by different deponents but within a single deponent’s affidavit evidence. Proper specification of names gives precision in finalising family provision orders, particularly in circumstances where a number of people within a family or beneficiaries within an estate might bear or be known by the same first or last name.

Thirdly, it provides assistance to administrators or other persons tasked with locating individuals who need to be served with Notices of Claim or other documents.

Frequently in the task of reviewing files for proposed settlement of family provision claims, a plethora of names are encountered, and (as noted) often spelt variously within the materials relating to the estate claim being considered.

For family provision purposes, it is helpful for practitioners to bear a few things in mind. Nonexclusively, the following matters may be noted.

Firstly, ordinarily, it is not necessary for the name of a person to be used by all the people who wish to refer to a particular person, before that name is indeed the name of that person. [73] Indeed it is not uncommon for one person to have or use more than one name at once, the name differing for family, business, formal or professional purposes. [74] Preferred names of relevant individuals to family provision claims should be provided. But it is also helpful to provide other names associated with the individual, particularly if there is a question regarding service of documents such as a Notice of Claim.

Secondly, the fact that many names have different variants of spelling compels vigilance in checking and correctly spelling the relevant person’s name.

Certain standards in life are uniform and we expect certain matters to operate in a particular way (e.g. the law of gravity). Some first names and middle names within families are traditionally passed on through generations. However, first (and middle) names are given for many other reasons which accord to no convention and defy predictability. Indeed, it has been suggested that most Australian parents choose their children’s personal names based on aesthetic appeal. [75] Other reasons include (non-exhaustively): the meaning/onomastic origin of the name; the name itself is a desirable characteristic for the child (e.g. Faith and Hope); the desire of parents or individuals to create a memorable, unique or bespoke name for a child or themselves; the name is a compromised choice by parents unable to initially agree either upon a name or uniform spelling of the name; the prevailing popularity of the name; and the ‘look’ or sound of the name, particularly when used in conjunction with the family’s name/surname.

Sometimes, parents will choose names for their children with a cohesive aesthetic or unifying theme. In this case, each of the deceased’s and Lisa-Maree’s 3 children’s first names begin with ‘J’ (‘Jordyn’, ‘Jesse’ and ‘Jasmine’). In another matter, a family of 7 children included 5 daughters all with variations of the name ‘Anne’.

The absence of uniformity of convention by which people are named suggests practitioners should default to expressly checking the spelling of names rather than assume a particular spelling. Some examples of varied spelling serve to illustrate the point:

It is not the purpose of this judgment to probe deeply the reasons for varied spelling of names. However, in respect of the last-mentioned example, despite the fact that ‘y’ is one of the less frequently used letters in words (about 2%), [77] within the mass of Family Provision List cases, it appears with much greater frequency in people’s first and middle names. That might well be explicable as a matter of phonetics. The Macquarie Dictionary [78] and the Merriam-Webster Dictionary [79] recognise the occasional use of ‘y’ as a vowel.

Thirdly, sometimes the spelling of the name is not the immediate issue, but the gender (or preferred gender) of the nominated person. Certain names (e.g. Ashley and Cameron) are or have become unisex. People may identify as female, male or non-binary. In accordance with the NAP Practice Note, it is helpful for parties to advise the Court of the appropriate form of address for persons, including Ms, Mr, Mrs, Mx, Dr, Prof.

Fourthly, the order of names may be the issue. Sometimes, at first blush, the full name of a person appears to be a combination of a number of first names (e.g. the late entertainer, Peter Allen) [80] or a first name and last name might appear to be reversed but are in fact not (e.g. the late actress, Piper Laurie). Clarification of the order of the names is important.

Fifthly, nicknames are sometimes used, being a type of familiar name added to or substituted for the proper name of a person. [81] Celebrities with stage names often include nicknames or shortened names. Leaving that aside, [82] sometimes the name is abbreviated by custom (e.g. ‘Jim’ for ‘James’), or slang (e.g. ‘Baz’ for ‘Barry’). [83] Sometimes it bears little relation to the proper name of the person, or, within the peculiarity of Australian culture, sometimes a nickname is entirely the opposite of the character of the person (e.g. ‘Rowdy’). [84]

Sixthly, under NSW Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Registry) policy, names are to be registered using the English alphabet. [85] In consequence, some names of persons with non-English heritage may be adapted to follow English naming conventions, particularly in formal documents, and thus have various spelling in the transliteration to the alphabet. [86]

Seventhly, there are some limitations regarding registration of names in New South Wales and practitioners ought to be aware of that. In New South Wales, there is an obligation to notify the fact of birth of a child, [87] to register the birth of a child (within a specified time), [88] and to register the name of a child. [89]

Certain names are prohibited names (e.g. by reason of being obscene or offensive or too long). [90] Information regarding that is publicly available. [91] For example, the Registry is currently unable to include diacritical marks or accents in any name registered in New South Wales. [92] If the name stated in the birth registration statement is a prohibited name, the Registrar may, in accordance with policy guidelines, [93] assign a name to the child. [94]

Eighthly, and related to the last point, people are free to change their names, acquiring the new names by use and reputation. [95] When that reputation is established is a question of fact. [96] Statutory provisions permit registration of a change of name to effect a name change. [97] Such a change includes an addition, omission or substitution of a name. [98] Information regarding changes of name [99] and the change of name policy [100] is also publicly available. However, importantly, registration is not the exclusive method of changing one’s name. [101] Practitioners should not assume that a search of the register will necessarily disclose a change of name.

Ninthly, specific guidance in relation to culturally appropriate and respectful language use when specifying or nominating First Nations people is formally available through Australian Government Style Manual sources. [102]

Two issues regarding eligible family members and spelling in this case required addressing.

First, the correct spelling of names as I have indicated above. The correct spelling of 3 names has now been provided (‘Jesse’, ‘Johnny’ and ‘Lisa-Maree’) and, in the case of Jordyn, the proper spelling confirmed.

Secondly, having regard to the deceased’s death certificate, it appears he was married 4 times, to Annette Constance Knox, Lisa-Maree Anne Barnes, Deborah Brown and finally the defendant. Difficulties in locating former spouses of the deceased for service of notice are understandable, [103] especially where the relationship was of short duration or ended many years before the deceased’s death. None of the deceased’s prior spouses had been served with Notices of Claim nor had any order been sought pursuant to s 61(2)(b) of the Succession Act for a determination that service is unnecessary, unreasonable or impracticable.

Through email by my Associate, I raised this with the parties. Initially the defendant was only able to locate one former spouse, Ms Brown (now known as Debbie Evans) and serve her with a Notice of Claim which she signed on 10 October 2025.

On 16 October 2025, Ms Swan confirmed to the court that Ms Barnes is aware of Jordyn’s claim and supports the proposed outcome.

In the case of Annette Merchant (nee Knox), [104] they were at the outset unable to locate her telephone number, email or postal address.

However, their response did reveal some information about Ms Merchant’s circumstances and, resolutely, they continued their search through the assistance of a third party and were ultimately able to locate and serve her. As I have previously observed, practitioners should not necessarily be stymied by initial hurdles; information gleaned from one search may serve as a helpful stepping stone to completing successful notification. [105]

On 20 October 2025 Ms Harrison, a legal assistant within Ms Kveytel’s office, spoke with Ms Merchant and served her with a form of Notice of Claim via email. Early on 21 October 2025, Ms Harrison followed up with Ms Merchant, alerting her to the Court’s intention to attempt to finalise the resolution of the matter promptly. Later that day Ms Merchant sought a copy of the Will and inventory of property. On 23 October 2023, Ms Harrison provided a copy of the Will and noted the value of the actual (not notional) estate.

This particular estate represents a relatively common family provision issue where there are limited financial resources but many persons who are eligible to make claims, having been involved in the deceased’s life recently or more distantly.

Provisionally, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the relatively short duration of the deceased's marriage to Ms Merchant which ended approximately 40 years ago, the deceased's further marriages, his obligations to his current spouse and to his children, the minimal actual estate, and the now expired limitation period to make claims without leave of the Court, I considered that the proposed orders are proper and appropriate.

On 24 October 2025, in the interests of expediently dealing with the matter, at my request, my Associate circulated to the legal practitioners and Ms Merchant a final form of proposed orders indicating that unless any party including Ms Merchant, at their own risk as to costs, opposed the proposed orders, I would finalise the orders this afternoon.

Finally, I return to where I began. In ‘Anne of Green Gables’, the initial mistake in communication [106] turned out serendipitously for Anne and the Cuthberts.

So here, the initial lack of a family tree diagram and failure to notify former spouses has not derailed the culmination of a satisfactory final outcome.

Montgomery’s novel concludes with Anne in an optimistic state “companioned by a glad content”. [107]

Hopefully, encouraged by guidance in respect of useful diagrams and accurate naming, practitioners will as Montgomery winsomely stated in Anne’s case have as theirs “the joys of sincere work and worthy aspiration”. [108]

The orders of the Court made are as follows: