Earlier in 2026, a letter sent by an AFL club to a 78-year-old supporter attracted widespread media coverage and public criticism. The practice of bequest solicitation, while common across both charitable and commercial organisations, drew sharp reaction in this instance. Critics questioned whether a sporting club soliciting testamentary gifts from elderly supporters crossed a line from legitimate fundraising into opportunism. Reports that the club’s bequest program specifically targeted members aged over 50 sharpened the controversy. This detail reinforced public concern that the campaign aimed to reach donors at a stage of life when decisions about wills and estates are most immediate.
The Legalities of Charitable Bequests
Organisations with large membership bases have well established charitable bequest programs. Despite reports that approximately over 80% of Australians donating to charity during their lifetime, only 6.5% to 8% currently leave a charitable bequest in their will – a gap that explains why organisations ranging from the Salvation Army and the Fred Hollows Foundation to Surf Lifesaving Clubs run active planned giving programs.
Under Chapter 2 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW), any person with testamentary capacity may leave a gift in their will. Those considering doing so should keep two practical points in mind.
First, the type of gift matters. A testator can structure a bequest as a fixed sum, a specific asset (such as property or shares), a percentage of the estate, or a share of the residue — what remains after the estate pays debts, expenses, and other gifts. A gift of a specific asset carries an additional risk. If the estate no longer holds the asset at the date of death, the gift may fail entirely.Likewise, each option carries different implications for the estate and for other beneficiaries.
Second, the testator must identify the organisation by its correct registered legal name. Most charities register with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. But the ACNC registration sits over an underlying legal entity. This is typically a company limited by guarantee, an incorporated association, or a trust. The two names are not always the same. Using an informal or abbreviated name can create ambiguity in the estate administration. For example, “the Salvos” rather than “The Salvation Army Australia.” An imprecise name may put the gift at risk of failing entirely. This happens if the name does not correspond to the entity entitled to receive the gift. Where a charity operates through multiple related entities, an imprecise name creates further risk. The executor may be unable to determine which entity the testator intended to benefit. The safest approach is to confirm the charity’s full legal name and ABN, and include both in the will.
Reflection
Is it good practice to have an active bequest program, that sends out frequent letters to the over 50-aged population? According to the AFL club example, apparently not.
Charities know that most testamentary gifts come from older donors. The demographic logic is simple: older people are more likely to be actively thinking about their wills, more likely to have accumulated assets worth gifting, and more likely to have long donation histories with particular organisations. Many have given to the same charity for decades and feel a genuine connection to its work.
This also makes them a susceptible audience for certain kinds of messaging. Some letters invoke a personal relationship, such as “you have been one of our most loyal supporters.” Others appeal to legacy and mortality, like “your gift will outlive us both.” Some frame a bequest as the natural culmination of a lifetime of giving. Older people can find these letters difficult to read without feeling implicitly obligated. Isolation increases this susceptibility. Recipients who live alone, have reduced social contact, or rely on charity correspondence for connection feel it more.
There is no suggestion that most charities act with predatory intent. But sustained solicitation — multiple letters per year, follow-up phone calls, invitations to events — can cumulatively amount to a form of soft coercion. The law around wills is poorly equipped to address this after the fact.
What the law says
A valid will in Australia requires that the testator have testamentary capacity and act free from undue influence. Undue influence in the legal sense means coercion that overbears the testator’s free will. Courts have consistently held that persuasion, emotional appeals, and persistent requests do not, on their own, amount to undue influence. A charity that sends a dozen letters a year asking a donor to include it in their will is unlikely to meet the legal threshold for undue influence over a testamentary gift, even if the donor ultimately complies partly out of a sense of guilt or obligation. Whether the solicitation itself raises issues under consumer protection or fundraising regulation is a separate question.
What family members can do
Family members concerned about an elderly relative who appears to be modifying their will in response to charity correspondence have limited options while the person is alive and has capacity. Adults are entitled to make their own decisions. Where capacity is genuinely in doubt, an application to the Guardianship Division of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal for the review or appointment of a financial manager may be appropriate.
In more complex matters, family members may bring proceedings in the Protective List of the Supreme Court of NSW. This applies particularly where they need to restrain dealings with property or prevent changes to a will. After death, family members can lodge a caveat to prevent a grant of probate. This allows time to prepare a family provision claim or a challenge on grounds of lack of capacity or undue influence. Both avenues are costly. Their prospects will depend on the factual circumstances.
Charitable bequests, made freely and with proper advice, can be a reasonable part of a will. For charities, these gifts can be transformative — funding research programs, expanding service delivery, or sustaining operations in ways that annual donations alone rarely achieve. Many of Australia’s most significant charitable initiatives have been built, in part, on the back of testamentary giving. The issue is not giving to charities – it is making sure that any such gift reflects what the testator actually wants, rather than what weeks of targeted correspondence led them to feel they owed.
Jake McKinley notes that this article is written for the purpose of providing generalised information and not to provide specialised legal advice. If you require qualified legal advice on anything mentioned in this article, our experienced team of solicitors at Jake McKinley are here to help. Please get in touch with us on 02 9232 8033 today to make an enquiry.
Article Written by Fernanda Araujo, Law Graduate
