CASES: GYM [2017] WASAT 136 & KRM [2017] WASAT 135
By 2016, GYM and KRM has been married for over 60 years, had three adult sons and several grandchildren.
They also owned a farm worth over $1.6 million, expensive farming equipment and tools, and a residential house in Mullaloo, WA.
By the end of 2017, they would have about $40,000 in the bank account and nothing else. Where had all their property and assets gone? To their three sons.
Let's celebrate the best holiday of the year with some funny Halloween legal cases!
Thanks to Matt, my co-host for this episode <3
CASE: R v Sweet [2021] QDC 216
Kym Anthony Sweet was charged with committing two criminal drug offences. He argued that he couldn't be charged because he consists of two separate entities:
There was the real-life flesh and blood man that goes by the name Kym-Anthony and then there is a straw man or dummy corporation which goes by KYM ANTHONY SWEET.
And the real person, Kym-Anthony, was not subject to the laws of Queensland. Therefore, he argued, the criminal charges against him should be dismissed.
CASE: Suzanne Dale Smith by her next friend the Public Trustee -v- Marion Kathryn Partridge as executor of the Estate of Thomas Smith [2018] WASC 128
Marion was the executor of her late father Thomas Smith's estate. In her capacity as executor, she transferred Thomas's house into her name, and held all of the funds in his estate.
The Court Ordered that Thomas's other daughter, Suzanne, also receive provision from Thomas's estate.
That's when Marion went to ground. She didn't comply with the Court Orders to pay Suzanne her money.
Suzanne started new proceedings against Marion, seeking to have Marion removed from the position of executor. Marion was ordered to appear before the Court, but she didn't.
It is a disturbing thing when the executor uses the law to get all of the deceased's assets and then hides from the responsibilities of that position.
CASE: Napier Keen Pty Ltd v Smith [2023] NSWSC 1134
Beverley was a bookkeeper for the law firm Keen Lawyers for 16 years.
After Beverley resigned, her boss Mr Keen discovered that Beverley had been taking money from the business. Over a period of 7 years, she siphoned over $1 million from the firm.
Unfortunately, by the time the theft was discovered, Beverley had lost most of the funds in pokie machines.
The firm sued not only Beverley, but also her partner Gregory. Although Gregory was not involved the the thefts and had no knowledge of them, the firm wanted him to be liable to repay them then stolen funds.
Can a spouse be financially liable for what the money their partner steals?
CASE: Ashton v Pratt (No 2) [2012] NSWSC 3
Madison Ashton provided escort services to the late Richard Pratt, a married man of exceptional wealth. She would provide such services from time to time and for reward.
When Pratt ended the relationship in 2004, Ashton sued him to enforce their contract.
According to Ashton, if she left the escort business and became Pratt's mistress, Pratt agreed to create a trust fund of $2.5 million for each of her two children and pay her an allowance of $500,000 per year .
Before the case went to hearing, Pratt died in 2009 and Ashton found herself suing his estate and his widow.
CASE: Hughes v Sangster [2019] ACTSC 178
Christine Hughes and her daughter Martell Sangster decided to combine their finances and buy a house together.
Christine contributed 100% of the purchase price, but was only registered on title as owning 50%. Martell had promised that she would pay her mother 50% of the purchase price as soon as she sold her existing house.
They all moved into the new home together: Christine, her daughter Martell, Martell's husband Dr Sangster and their three children.
Several years later, the arrangement ended and for years Christine and her daughter disputed over how the proceeds from the sale of the house would be divided. Martell had only ever paid for 5% of the original purchase price but she was the registered owner of 50%.
It was up to Christine to prove to the Court that was entitled to more than 50% of the proceeds.
CASE: Re Estate Condon; Battenberg v Phillips [2017] NSWSC 1813
Blanche Minnie Condon died in 2016 leaving behind an estate worth about $7m. She had made her last Will only a few weeks before her death. Her Will made no provision for her nephew Andrew Battenberg, who was living in Scotland.
Andrew challenged the validity of the last Will. He much preferred Blanche’s earlier Wills in which he got a little something.
The catch? What makes this case different? Andrew had no assets in Australia, which made the executors of Blanche’s estate nervous about recouping legal costs if Andrew lost his case. It would take additional time and money to enforce any NSW court orders in Scotland. The executors asked the court for security for costs — basically, a legal “just in case” deposit.
In Part 1 we looked at the executor's claim for security for costs.
In this Part 2 we look at Andrew's challenge to the validity of the last Will and whether it was successful.
CASE: Re Estate Condon; Battenberg v Phillips [2017] NSWSC 1813
Blanche Minnie Condon died in 2016 leaving behind an estate worth about $7m. She had made her last Will only a few weeks before her death. Her Will made no provision for her nephew Andrew Battenberg, who was living in Scotland.
Andrew challenged the validity of the last Will. He much preferred Blanche’s earlier Wills in which he got a little something.
The catch? What makes this case different? Andrew had no assets in Australia, which made the executors of Blanche’s estate nervous about recouping legal costs if Andrew lost his case. It would take additional time and money to enforce any NSW court orders in Scotland. The executors asked the court for security for costs — basically, a legal “just in case” deposit.
In Part 1 we look at the executor's claim for security for costs.
In Part 2 we look at Andrew's challenge to the validity of the last Will and whether it was successful.
CASE: KNQ [2019] NSWCATGD 19
Despite the almost comical feel of the term “granny napping”, it is a serious problem that involves taking control over an older person’s life, isolating them from family and support networks, in order to get a financial advantage or other personal reasons. It is generally a traumatic experience for everyone involved.
In this case, everyone agreed that the older person KNQ (referred to in the episode as "Kate") was in need of full-time care in a nursing home. Her doctors agreed, the Aged Care Assessment Team agreed, her daughter agreed, and one of her sons agreed.
The only one who didn't agree was 'Kate's' son LAB (referred to as "Larry" in the episode).
On the very same day that the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal appointed the NSW Public Guardian to be Kate's guardian, Larry absconded with Kate across the border to the Canberra, ACT.
This kicked off further proceedings in the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal and the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal to determine who should be Kate's guardian and raised the question - If one Tribunal makes an order, can the other Tribunal overrule it?
CASE: NSW Trustee & Guardian v McGrath [2013] NSWSC 1894
Ethel Clarke was estranged from her family. Her closest relatives where six grandchildren who she rarely saw and who appeared to want nothing to do with her.
When Ethel died in October 2009 without a Will, the NSW Trustee & Guardian were appointed as the administrators of her estate.
Maurice McGrath claimed that he had been Ethel's de facto partner of more than 20 years, and was therefore entitled to a share of her estate.
The grandchildren disputed this, but how would they really know anything about Ethel's life?
The fight for Ethel's estate was still ongoing 4 years later, when Maurice died. Leaving it to Maurice's estate to continue the fight on his behalf.
CASE: The Council of the NSW Bar Association v Rollinson [2021] NSWSC 1319; The Council of the NSW Bar Association v Rollinson [2021] NSWSC 1090; The Council of the NSW Bar Association v Rollinson [2022] NSWSC 407; The Council of the NSW Bar Association v Rollinson (costs) [2021] NSWSC 1091
Michael Rollinson was a barrister and in 2021 there was a delay in receiving his certificate to practice law. He gave an undertaking to stop working as a barrister until he had his practicing certificate. But he didn't stop.
There was an injunction against him to stop working as a solicitor, just until the practicing certificate issue was cleared up. But he didn't stop.
There was a second injunction, but he didn't stop.
There was a court order - he didn't stop.
Finally, he was charged with contempt of court and sentenced to 9 months in prison if he did not stop practicing as a barrister without a practicing certificate...
CASE: Katsis v R [2018] NSWCCA 9
WARNING: This case involves disturbing details of acriminal assault and rape.
In 1988, Doris Fenbow was 66 years old and living in a housing commission unit in Little Bay. She kept to herself and didn't associate with her neighbours.
In September, smoke was seen coming from Doris's unit. Two neighbours forced their way in and made a horrific discovery. They found Doris deceased body. She had been assaulted and raped.
It would take 26 years before Doris' attacker was identified and brought to justice.
CASE: R v Bredal [2024] NSWCCA 75
WARNING: Disturbing content of child sex offences
Daniel Christian Bredal (45 years old) was charged with a child sex offence, that offence being using a carriage service to groom a person under 16 years.
There was no 16-year-old child on the other end of the communications. It was in fact a fictious assumed online identify operated by the police.
Bredal was sentenced to 1 year and 7 months imprisonment. However, due to exceptional circumstances, he was released immediately on recognizance.
The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed against the sentence on the basis that it was manifestly inadequate - not the length of the sentence, but that it had been suspended.
The appeal was unsuccessful.
CASE: In the Estate of Edward Steven Middleton [2019] QSC 128
If you tear up your Will, does it cancel the Will or does it only cause a whole lotta headache for the administrator of your estate?
In this case, both.
There is a presumption that where the Will was last in the possession of the testator, and it cannot be located after their death, that the testator intentionally destroyed their Will intending to revoke it.
This is problematic where the Will has simply been misplaced or destroyed unintentionally.
But even if you do rip up you Will with dramatic flourish, wholly intending to cancel it, how can anyone know that for sure? It still needs to be proven which in itself is a hassle.
This case serves as a good example that even if your action has the intended outcome, there may have been an easier way to get there.
It also demonstrates that destroying your last Will does not automatically revive your earlier Will and may result in you having died with no Will at all.
CASE: Sadiq v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2015] NSWSC 716
When Christina Coombes died in June 2013, she left behind a decrepit home in Paddington, Sydney, and no Will.
After her death, Waleed Sadiq, a man 18 years her junior, claimed to have been in a romantic relationship with Christina for the past 17 years.
However, there was no record of Christina ever having a parter and her neighbours said that Waleed was just man who came by sometimes selling junk door-to-door.
Which was it? Was he her devoted spouse or a canny salesman who spotted an opportunity?
CASE: Priestley v Priestley [2017] NSWCA 155
In 2002, there was a rupture in the Priestley family that resulted in the father Gordon and his son on one side, facing off against the mother Beverley and two other children Christopher and Claire.
It resulted in not only the breakdown of Gordon's marriage, but also the family farming operation. When the matter was settled, after 2 years of litigation, all the parties walked away with a chunk of the farm properties.
For most of his life, Duncan had worked on his father's farm for little to no pay. After the dust had settled in 2004, Gordon was 80 years old and unable to take over the running of the farm. It was Duncan who provided care to his ageing father, financial support, and free labour to get the farm back on its feet.
So it was a huge surprise to Duncan to find out that Gordon had made a new Will in 2007 which left his estate equally to Duncan, his two other children, and his ex-wife Beverley.
CASE: Re Legal Practitioners Admissions Board and Sousa [2025] QSC 56
In 2023 Chanel Sousa had completed her law degree and was ready to become a lawyer. She applied to the Legal Practitioners Admissions Board to be admitted to the Roll of Legal Practitioners, to be able to practice law in Queensland.
Her application immediately hit a wall - Benjamin Millmann submitted an objection to Chanel’s admission.
The reasons behind his objection were odd to say the least and related to Millmann's past dealings with Chanel's domestic partner Senior Constable Seth Gilson.
Millmann had some unpleasant run-ins with law enforcement in the past and most recently with SC Gilson.
Millman turned the tables and HE investigated SC Gilson, in a manner which SC Gilson alleged was stalking.
This case was recommended by Case Nerd Molly Akhmatova <3
CASE: Rada v Smith [2024] NSWSC 273
“In the legal folklore which surrounded will making in Victorian England, the archetype of the spiteful father was one who disinherited his only child and left everything to the Battersea Dogs Home. That, almost literally, is what the plaintiff says her late father has done to her, albeit in Australia.” (Justice Kunc)
In this case the estranged daughter Rebecca moved with her mother to Canada when she was only 3 years old. Her father Igor stayed in Australia and they had limited contact throughout Rebecca's life.
When Igor died in 2022, he made no provision for his daughter in his Will.
Rebecca applied to the Court seeking provision from her late father's estate.
Many would describe Rebecca as Igor's long-estranged daughter and consider the estrangement as a relevant factor when determining whether Rebecca was entitle to any of her father's estate.
Justice Kunc warned that the use of the word "estranged" was problematic as it often associated with wrong-doing, condemnation, disgrace, or shameful behaviour.
CASE: Jamil v Medical Board of Australia [2024] SASC 90; Medical Board of Australia v Jamil [2023] SACAT 45.
In 2020 Dr Shamyal Hamoon Jamil was working as a registered medical intern at an Adelaide Hospital.
At the same hospital, university medical students would under work placements.
Jamil was charged with inappropriate sexual conduct in relation to two of the medical students, referred to in the judgment as AB and CD.
This case includes reviewing some of the messages exchanged, secret messages and deleted messages, nude photos, and faked messages.
Warning: sexually explicit, racist, and disturbing content.