The Supreme Court judgment in the dispute over Brian Dayman’s estate was handed down in August. Photo: Wikipedia.
The NSW Supreme Court has dismissed a woman’s claim to be granted her deceased father’s whole estate after she was left out of his will.
According to court documents, Brian Dayman died in Griffith Base Hospital in May 2024 after suffering a heart attack. For the last 20 years of his life, he had lived in Darlington Point with his de facto partner Cheryl Brown.
In 1978, Brian had married Glenys Dayman. Brian and Glenys separated in the 1990s but never divorced. According to Glenys, the pair remained amicably estranged.
Brian’s last will was made in February 1992. It appointed Glenys as executor and the sole beneficiary, with a gift provided for the two children only if Glenys were to die before him.
Their son, Michael, died in 2009, leaving Kate Dayman as their only surviving child.
After her father’s death, Kate, 44, made a claim for a family provision order, requesting that a court allocate her the whole of her father’s estate.
Brian’s partner at the time of his death, Ms Brown, chose not to make a claim on his estate. So the dispute over his assets was between Brian’s estranged wife and their daughter.
Judge Francois Kunc described the court battle between daughter and mother as a “very unhappy dispute”.
Kate had previously taken legal action against her mother Glenys over Brian’s funeral arrangements and how his ashes should be distributed. This matter was resolved by the Supreme Court in July 2024, with Judge Michael Meek quoting Mark Twain in his judgment to sum up the case: ”Nothing that grieves us can be called little”.
Judgment in the more recent court dispute, over Brian’s assets, was handed down in August 2025. Judge Kunc described it as a “very small estate” that was “completely consumed by legal fees”.
At the time of his death, Brian’s estate was worth $33,000, most of which derived from a property in Darlington Point. He also owed Glenys $47,000 in unpaid mortgage payments, a loan and court costs relating to the couple’s previous home when they were married. Adding Glenys’s more recent legal costs over the estate dispute, she was owed a total of just over $86,000.
Given that liabilities from the estate were greater than the assets, any payout from Brian’s death to either his wife or daughter would need to come from his superannuation fund of just over $137,000. There was no binding nomination for this fund – that is, no legal instructions on who was entitled to this money.
As Brian’s only living child, Kate had the right under law to make a claim on her father’s estate, even though she was excluded from his will.
However, Judge Kunc chose to dismiss this claim.
“The fact remains that Brian died indebted to Glenys,” he ruled.
“I accept that Glenys had a reasonable expectation that the estate would provide some redress in relation to [what Brian owed her], which should not be lightly interfered with by the court.”
He also said Brian’s moral obligation to repay what he owed Glenys “outweighs” any onus that Brian may have had to Kate as an independent, adult child.
The judge also noted that Brian had chosen not to change his will since 1992, despite many life events occurring since then.
“Those events include his separation from Glenys, the property settlement, the fact that he did not obtain a divorce which would have brought the will to an end, and whatever reconsideration might have been occasioned by the death of Matthew in 2009,” Judge Kunc said.
These pub barons owe their fortunes to the poker machines. How much do they pay back to the… View