When Carers Become Beneficiaries — Lessons from Waters v Frank [2025] NSWSC 1389

success story
Written By Danielle Whitall

This Blog is general information purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial or taxation advice.

Few areas of law reveal family tensions as starkly as succession disputes. The recent New South Wales Supreme Court decision in Waters v Frank; Frank v Waters [2025] NSWSC 1389 shines a spotlight on the delicate balance between caring relationships, testamentary freedom, and the risk of undue influence.

At its heart, this case asked: When does a carer’s growing role in an elderly person’s life cross the line into controlling their estate planning?

The Story of Dr Percy Waters

Dr Percy Lloyd Waters lived a remarkable life — a London‑born scientist who immigrated to Australia, worked for CSIRO, and raised two daughters, Laura and Victoria. After a serious accident in 2006 left him frail, he relied heavily on carers. One of those carer’s, Lavinia Williment‑Brown (‘Lavina’), became increasingly involved in his personal and financial affairs.

Between 1999 and 2019, Dr Waters executed a series of wills. Early wills divided his estate equally between his daughters. Later wills, however, began to carve out growing shares for Lavinia, culminating in the 2019 will where she received the largest single portion of the residue.

The Dispute

  • 2019 Will: Probate was granted to solicitor Andrew Frank in 2021.

  • Challenge: Laura Waters sought to revoke this grant, arguing that her father’s later wills were tainted by undue influence and suspicious circumstances.

  • Cross‑Claim: Another defendant attempted to uphold the 2019 will in solemn form.

The central question was whether Dr Waters truly knew and approved the contents of his later wills, or whether Lavinia’s influence had compromised his independence.

What the Court Found

Justice Elkaim AJ carefully examined:

  • Medical evidence: Dr Waters had mild mixed dementia and was vulnerable.

  • Solicitor’s notes: Geoffrey Murray, Dr Waters’ long‑time solicitor, kept detailed records expressing concern about Lavinia’s influence.

  • Witness credibility: The daughters’ evidence was consistent; Lavinia’s was not.

  • Pattern of wills: Each successive will increased Lavinia’s share while reducing the daughters’ inheritance

Undue Influence: What Really Happened

The court’s finding of probate undue influence wasn’t abstract — it was grounded in a series of troubling events that painted a clear picture of coercion and control:

  • Carer’s Access to Finances
    Within months of being hired in 2008, Lavinia Williment‑Brown (the carer) had gained access to Dr Waters’ bank accounts. She was involved in his financial affairs far beyond the scope of her employment as a domestic assistant.

  • Attempts to Formalize Control
    In 2010, Lavinia asked Dr Waters to sign a document directing that she manage his financial affairs until his death. His long‑time solicitor, Geoffrey Murray, was alarmed, noting that Lavinia was “working behind the scenes” to remove him and replace him with her own choice of lawyers.

  • Solicitor’s Warnings
    Murray’s contemporaneous notes were damning. He advised Dr Waters to immediately cancel internet banking, sack Lavinia, and reconcile with his family. He described Lavinia as a destabilizing influence who was isolating Dr Waters from trusted advisors and relatives.

  • Dismissal and Return
    Murray eventually dismissed Lavinia in September 2010.

What the Court Concluded:

  • Suspicious circumstances were not dispelled.

  • Probate undue influence was established.

  • The 2019 will was invalid.

  • Probate of the 2009 will was granted, reinstating equal shares for the daughters.

Why this Case matters:

This decision underscores several key principles:

  • Probate undue influence is distinct from equitable undue influence and can invalidate a will.

  • Courts will scrutinize wills where carers or non‑family members gain increasing benefits.

  • Detailed contemporaneous notes from solicitors can be decisive in proving suspicious circumstances.

  • Testamentary freedom is not absolute — it must be exercised free from coercion.

Takeaway for Families

The case is a cautionary tale. Families should be alert when vulnerable relatives make significant changes to their wills under the influence of carers or advisors. Practitioners must document circumstances thoroughly to protect both the testator’s intentions and the integrity of the probate process.

Closing Thought

Waters v Frank reminds us that succession law is not just about dividing assets — it’s about safeguarding dignity, autonomy, and fairness in the final chapter of a person’s life.

Danielle Whitall