Son loses bitter battle with his sister over $7.5million Sydney home after claiming his mother promised it would be his for almost 40 years

By SARAH BROOKES - SENIOR REPORTER, AUSTRALIA Published: 13:23, 22 August 2026 | Updated: 13:23, 22 August 2026 A son who believed a $7.5million home in a popular Sydney coastal suburb was destined to be his has lost a bitter inheritance battle against his estranged sister. The Supreme Court was told of a decades-long family feud involving allegations of broken promises, secret inheritance deals and a rift that left the siblings barely speaking for almost 20 years. At the centre of the dispute was 46 Arcadia Street, Coogee, a modest seaside home bought by Agnes and Colin Bruce in 1977 for $55,500. By the time Agnes died in April 2024 aged 102, the property was worth an estimated $7.5million, making it a life-changing inheritance.  Agnes changed her mind about her will more than once.  Her 2010 will left the Coogee home solely to her son, Robert, but a new will signed in 2015 divided it equally between him and his sister, Paula.  After Agnes' death, Robert launched Supreme Court proceedings seeking to overturn the 2015 will, claiming his mother had been subjected to undue influence, lacked capacity, and had long promised the house would ultimately be his. Robert told the court his parents assured him when they bought the property in 1977 that it would one day belong to him. Robert claimed he spent years renovating and maintaining the home because he believed it had been promised to him. Paula Bruce (pictured) testified she was 'deeply hurt' after learning her mother's 2010 will largely favoured her brother Robert, describing it as 'grossly unfair' The Arcadia St house (pictured) in Coogee soared in value from $55,000 in 1977 to $7.5million But Justice Kate Williams rejected the allegations, finding there was insufficient evidence Agnes had ever made such promises. The judge also rejected claims Paula had manipulated her mother into changing the will, finding Agnes 'knew and approved' its contents and that it reflected her 'real intention and true will'. The court accepted evidence that Agnes decided to change her will after concluding the value of the Coogee home had soared, upsetting what she saw as a fair balance between her two children. One witness recalled Agnes insisting: 'No one will tell me what to do with my will.' The judgment also revealed the depth of the family's animosity. Paula, who was admitted as a solicitor in 2004, testified she was 'deeply hurt' after learning Agnes' 2010 will largely favoured Robert, describing it as 'grossly unfair'. She was so upset she stopped speaking to her mother for about 18 months.  The court heard the roots of the dispute stretched back decades and centred on another Coogee property at 9 Berwick Street. Robert claimed he was denied his fair share of profits after the property was sold in 2001 to a developer for $2.4million, while Paula insisted she had legitimately purchased the site from her parents years earlier. A bird's-eye view of Coogee, a sought after coastal suburb in Sydney The bitter disagreement destroyed the siblings' relationship, with the pair barely speaking for almost two decades. Justice Williams ultimately rejected Robert's version of events, finding Paula had become the property's sole legal and beneficial owner in 1993. Justice Williams rejected evidence Robert had been promised the Arcadia St house since the 70s, warning that recollections of conversations from decades earlier could not always be relied upon.  'All too often what is actually remembered is little more than an impression from which plausible details are then, again often subconsciously, constructed,' she wrote. Justice Williams found Agnes 'did not execute the 2015 will under the undue influence of Paula' and that she 'knew and approved the contents' of the document.  The court also heard explosive claims Paula suggested Robert's wife Lorraine had married him for the family fortune and wanted a stake in the valuable Coogee property.  Lorraine alleged the rumours poisoned family relationships and fuelled growing mistrust within the Bruce clan.  Paula denied making the comments and the judge ultimately rejected the claims, but the evidence offered a glimpse into the toxic family tensions that simmered for years before the inheritance war erupted in court.  The five-day hearing in the NSW Supreme Court (pictured) could ultimately leave Robert facing legal bills running into hundreds of thousands of dollars Robert's loss also came with a potentially ruinous financial sting. In a subsequent costs ruling, the court ordered Robert to pay 70 per cent of Paula's legal costs after finding large parts of his case were built on an 'inherently implausible' interpretation of decades-old family property arrangements. The five-day family feud could ultimately leave Robert facing legal bills running into hundreds of thousands of dollars, and potentially more than $1million depending on the total costs incurred by both sides.  The judge also revealed Robert had turned down a pre-trial settlement offer under which he would have received an extra $200,000 from Paula's share of the estate. Justice Williams noted that had Robert accepted the offer he would have achieved 'a more favourable outcome than he achieved at trial'.