![\"Michaela](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/ab26b9357499fdacb1cdd0be7daf9c7eb896381f.png\")
Save<\/p>\nSave<\/p>\n
You have reached your maximum number of saved items.<\/p>\n
Remove items from your saved list<\/a> to add more.<\/p>\n AAA<\/p>\n Two men in Sydney who had been friends for decades made a pact at a suburban shopping centre. It would deliver one of them millions of dollars.<\/p>\n The handshake deal between the men was at the heart of a costly inheritance dispute in the NSW Supreme Court that exposes some of the pitfalls of relying on unwritten promises.<\/p>\n The elder of the pair died without a will in 2017, aged 85. He had lived frugally but left behind an $8 million estate. His wife and son had died before him.<\/p>\n His closest surviving relative, an elderly cousin in Adelaide who had seen him a handful of times in 65 years, stood to receive an inheritance under rules that apply where there is no will.<\/p>\n The shopping centre pact<\/p>\n But the deceased\u2019s closest friend said he was entitled to the whole estate, based on a \u201cdeal\u201d the pair struck when the man was alive. He brought proceedings in the Supreme Court and won.<\/p>\n The court found the deceased promised in 2010 to leave \u201call my possessions\u201d to his friend, provided the friend cared for him until his death. The arrangement also extended to caring for the man\u2019s wife.<\/p>\n It was a serious agreement worth millions of dollars. The court heard it was made in a conversation at Top Ryde Shopping Centre in Sydney\u2019s north-west that was never reduced to writing.<\/p>\n The court said there was an \u201cunstated but clear qualification\u201d the gift would not be made if the man died before his wife. In that case, she would have inherited everything, rather than the friend. As it transpired, she died before her husband in 2012.<\/p>\n The court said the relationship between the men, who had met at work in the 1980s, was \u201cquasi-familial in nature\u201d. The deceased made further statements affirming the promise over time.<\/p>\n \u201cI committed to a demanding and long\u2011term support until their deaths,\u201d the friend said in court.<\/p>\n Justice Mark Richmond said that \u201cthe degree of care and support … went far beyond what would be expected of a friend\u201d.<\/p>\n The court found the promise was made, and the friend had relied upon it to his detriment. He had retired early to care for the couple. His retirement appeared to be directly related to the promise, in light of his own \u201crelatively insecure financial circumstances\u201d.<\/p>\n He also deferred moving to Queensland to be with family members.<\/p>\n Value of estate<\/p>\n There was evidence the friend did not know the value of the man\u2019s assets before his death, having estimated their value in official documents in 2013 at $2.9 million.<\/p>\n In orders made this month, the court declared the entire estate was held on trust for the friend, minus expenses and liabilities. This is expected to result in him receiving about $8 million because there are funds available exceeding that figure.<\/p>\n \u201cWhat makes the case particularly striking is that this was not a conventional \u2018contest the will\u2019 family provision claim,\u201d said Mary-Ann de Mestre, principal of Sydney law firm M de Mestre Lawyers and a lecturer in succession law at Macquarie University.<\/p>\n Related Article \u201cThe plaintiff succeeded \u2026 [by] essentially persuading the court that promises had been made over many years, that he had organised his life around those promises, and that it would be unconscionable for the estate to walk away from them after the deceased\u2019s death.\u201d<\/p>\n This involved a legal doctrine known as proprietary estoppel. It was \u201cincredibly difficult and expensive to prove\u201d, de Mestre said. It requires a plaintiff to prove, among other things, that there was \u201ca sufficiently clear promise\u201d that they relied upon to their detriment.<\/p>\n \u201cHistorically, surprisingly few family arrangements of this nature were formally documented,\u201d de Mestre said.<\/p>\n \u201cParents would make statements such as \u2018one day all of this will be yours\u2019 or \u2018if you look after me, I\u2019ll make sure you are taken care of\u2019. But cases like [this] demonstrate the enormous risk in leaving these arrangements undocumented.\u201d<\/p>\n Related Article The NSW Supreme Court enforced a similar promise in a dispute over a small farming property owned by the late Australian academic and ABC chair Dame Leonie Kramer. Appeals all the way to the High Court failed<\/a>.<\/p>\n Dame Leonie had left the property to one of her daughters. The court found it had been promised to a farmworker who made a meagre income working on the property for decades.<\/p>\n A couple who looked after their elderly neighbour in Birchgrove also succeeded<\/a> in proving in 2020 that they were entitled to her two harbour-front properties because she had promised they would inherit them if they cared for her in her twilight years.<\/p>\n Our Breaking News Alert will notify you of significant breaking news when it happens. Get it here.<\/a><\/p>\n Save<\/p>\n You have reached your maximum number of saved items.<\/p>\n![\"The](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/263e64b9cab1c2df589a6c73b73a32fcb1a89c32432d5aa56559bcfb4e9cda91.jpeg\")
The handshake deal was made at a suburban Sydney shopping centre.Aresna Villanueva<\/p>\n![\"Top](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/c546d2f685bf42e5e1d2b3e9414a8691b2501e4e.jpeg\")
Top Ryde shopping centre, where the two men made the pact.<\/p>\n![\"The](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/cb23ff5fb6057b75f7f997bba2e3e6b7de7dd1ee719b3bd9c59331a44ebd097e.jpeg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"The](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/1772855410_247_50855b2865a0411216de2f0caa6e642404381587834172bdd8919ac9442decf8.jpeg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n