41 The approach to be taken by the Court when considering claims by children to be provided with funds for a house were dealt with by Gzell J in McGrath v Eves [2005] NSWSC 1006 at, par [67]:
"[67] When it comes to children, as Young J observed in Shearer v The Public Trustee, NSWSC, unreported, 23 March 1998, it has never been said by any court that the community expects a mother to leave her children in a position to have a house of their own. That observation applies equally to a father. And in Gorton v Parks (1989) 17 NSWLR 1 at 7, Bryson J pointed out that there is no special principle that able-bodied adults earning a living have no claim, his Honour pointing out that such a proposition in relation to resources of any size was quite erroneous.
[68] In Barbara Mayfield v Suzy Carolyn Lloyd-Williams [2004] NSWSC 419 at [109]-[110], White J, having referred to this passage, went on to observe that there was no rule to the effect that proper provision for an adult and presently able-bodied child did not extend to providing him or her with a house or money to buy one. His Honour noted that instances in which this had occurred included Re Buckland, deceased [1966] VR 404 and Ogden v Green [2003] NSWCA 352.
[69] White J's decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal in Lloyd-Williams v Mayfield [2005] NSWCA 189. In the course of his judgment, Bryson JA at [31] pointed out that there were features to the case that were rarely encountered in claims under the Family Provision Act 1982 and rarely encountered together. First, the value of the shares designated as notional estate was very large in comparison with the estates ordinarily encountered. Secondly, because the appellant was otherwise amply provided for, the further provision ordered by White J could have no adverse effect on her wellbeing. Thirdly, the applicant did not have any needs in terms of lack of present provision for necessities and amenities of life on an ordinary scale of needs as understood in the community generally.
[70] It was submitted that Mayfield was distinguishable by the absence of these features in the instant circumstances and because the appellant in Mayfield had filed no financial evidence and put forward no competing financial or other needs for the Court to consider.
[71] There are differences of fact between Mayfield and the present case. But they do not affect the central proposition that there is no rule to the effect that proper provision for an adult and presently able-bodied child does not extend to providing him or her with a house or money to buy one. That proposition was not criticised by the Court of Appeal. Indeed, at [32], Bryson JA observed that it was open to White J and altogether appropriate to look well beyond needs when interpreting and applying community standards to decide what provision the court ought to order."
42 As a result of a property settlement with her former husband Shoghik received close to $175,000 in May 2007 which she spent on living expenses. Due to anxiety, depression and stress Shoghik has not worked since July 2007. Shoghik and her children had a close relationship with the deceased and their need was acknowledged in the will of the deceased who left a quarter of her estate to Shoghik and a quarter to be divided between Kassia and Meenas. Her need takes priority as it includes being able to secure accommodation for herself and her two children. Shoghik suggests that she would like a three bedroom villa in Eastwood and West Ryde area. The evidence before me shows availability of this accommodation for $530,000 to $579,000. She also asks for an additional $25,000 to enable her to discharge her present liabilities and to meet future contingencies. It has to be noted that she has had an advance from the estate to which I have referred of some $35,000.