Folgen
-
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
-
Fehlende Folgen?
-
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.
-
CASE: Milewski v Holben [2014] NSWSC 388
Colin Robert Holben died when he was 50 years old. His last Will created an overly complex structure of testamentary trusts to hold his $11 million estate for his family.
His family consisted of his wife Lisa and their two teenage sons.
But Colin had been married before, to Adele Judith Milewski. They had divorced 16 years before Colin's death.
And Colin died, Adele made an application for provision from her ex-husband’s estate and, due to some unique circumstances, was successful.
-
CASE: Vosnakis v Arfaras [2015] NSWSC 625
Helen Vosnakis was buried in Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park – formerly known as Botany Cemetery - on 25 July 2012. She left behind her husband, Joseph Vosnakis, and her mother, Aristea Arfaras.
Not long after Helen’s burial, Joseph and Aristea would be entrenched in a sad legal dispute.
There was a burial licence for Helen’s grave that permitted two people to be buried in the grave. The legal dispute related to who owned the licence and who would eventually be buried with Helen.
Joseph wanted, on his death, to be buried with his late wife. Aristea claimed ownership of the burial licence and that she would be buried with Helen.
-
CASE: Galic v Engelina Maria Sellin as executrix of the estate of Milan Glavota [2025] WASCA1
Wills are important documents to be taken seriously, both in the drafting and the signing. They distribute the deceased person’s wealth and possessions. You definitely don't want there to be any uncertainty as to what a clause in the Will means.
In this case, a difference in interpretation was worth more than $7million.
Lucija Glavota's last Will made the following gift:
"I GIVE all my house & land (including the old house sitting on my property) to my said nephew MILAN GLAVOTA absolutely."
The gift was subject to a condition that Milan pay 90% of the market value of the property to 8 other beneficiaries within 5 years.
Milan didn't pay the beneficiaries within the 5 years because his solicitor advised him that he didn't have to.
Six years after Lucija's death, Milan too died and his executor needed to know:
(a) did the land form part of Milan's estate?
(b) did Milan's solicitor give him incorrect advice?
-
CASE: R v Struhs & Ors [2025] QSC 10
WARNING: disturbing content.
8-year-old Elizabeth Rose Struhs died on 7 Jan 2022 and her death was entirely preventable. Elizabeth was a diabetic and for two years, her condition had been managed and treated with insulin.
That all ended on 3 January 2022 when the decision was made to not give Elizabeth insulin ever again. That decision was made by her parents, with their support of their small home-based religious congregation.
In this final part, we find out the sentences handed down and hear the sentencing remarks of the Judge.
NOTE: Voices of the parties have been produced by AI voice generation and are not the real voices of the parties.
-
CASE: R v Struhs & Ors [2025] QSC 10
WARNING: disturbing content.
8-year-old Elizabeth Rose Struhs died on 7 Jan 2022 and her death was entirely preventable. Elizabeth was a diabetic and for two years, her condition had been managed and treated with insulin.
That all ended on 3 January 2022 when the decision was made to not give Elizabeth insulin ever again. That decision was made by her parents, with their support of their small home-based religious congregation.
This case will be covered in 5 parts.
In PART 1 you will be introduced to the members of The Saints, a conservative home-based religious group that rejected all medical treatment.
In PART 2 we will look at the events in July 2019 when young Elizabeth Struhs was diagnosed with diabetes. Kerrie, who was a devoted member of The Saints refused to seek medical care for her critically ill daughter.
In PART 3 we look at the first hearing in which Elizabeth's parents are charged with failure to provide their daughter with the necessaries of life, almost resulting in her death.
In PART 4 we will follow the changes in the Struhs family and the campaign of the collective members of The Saints to see that Elizabeth be taken off insulin, a campaign that would lead to Elizabeth's death.
In PART 5, you will hear about the criminal trial of all 14 members of The Saints charged with manslaughter in relation to the unlawful death of Elizabeth Struhs.
In PART 6, we find out the sentences handed down and hear the sentencing remarks of the Judge.
NOTE: Voices of the parties have been produced by AI voice generation and are not the real voices of the parties
-
CASE: R v Struhs & Ors [2025] QSC 10
WARNING: disturbing content.
8-year-old Elizabeth Rose Struhs died on 7 Jan 2022 and her death was entirely preventable. Elizabeth was a diabetic and for two years, her condition had been managed and treated with insulin.
That all ended on 3 January 2022 when the decision was made to not give Elizabeth insulin ever again. That decision was made by her parents, with their support of their small home-based religious congregation.
This case will be covered in 5 parts.
In PART 1 you will be introduced to the members of The Saints, a conservative home-based religious group that rejected all medical treatment.
In PART 2 we will look at the events in July 2019 when young Elizabeth Struhs was diagnosed with diabetes. Kerrie, who was a devoted member of The Saints refused to seek medical care for her critically ill daughter.
In PART 3 we look at the first hearing in which Elizabeth's parents are charged with failure to provide their daughter with the necessaries of life, almost resulting in her death.
In PART 4 we will follow the changes in the Struhs family and the campaign of the collective members of The Saints to see that Elizabeth be taken off insulin, a campaign that would lead to Elizabeths death.
In PART 5, our final part, you will hear about the criminal trial of all 14 members of The Saints charged with manslaughter in relation to the unlawful death of Elizabeth Struhs.
NOTE: Voices of the parties have been produced by AI voice generation and are not the real voices of the parties.
-
CASE: R v Struhs & Ors [2025] QSC 10
WARNING: disturbing content.
8-year-old Elizabeth Rose Struhs died on 7 Jan 2022 and her death was entirely preventable. Elizabeth was a diabetic and for two years, her condition had been managed and treated with insulin.
That all ended on 3 January 2022 when the decision was made to not give Elizabeth insulin ever again. That decision was made by her parents, with their support of their small home-based religious congregation.
This case will be covered in 5 parts.
In PART 1 you will be introduced to the members of The Saints, a conservative home-based religious group that rejected all medical treatment.
In PART 2 we will look at the events in July 2019 when young Elizabeth Struhs was diagnosed with diabetes. Kerrie, who was a devoted member of The Saints refused to seek medical care for her critically ill daughter.
In PART 3 we look at the first hearing in which Elizabeth's parents are charged with failure to provide their daughter with the necessaries of life, almost resulting in her death.
In PART 4 we will follow the changes in the Struhs family and the campaign of the collective members of The Saints to see that Elizabeth be taken off insulin, a campaign that would lead to Elizabeths death.
In PART 5, our final part, you will hear about the criminal trial of all 14 members of The Saints charged with manslaughter in relation to the unlawful death of Elizabeth Struhs.
NOTE: Voices of the parties have been produced by AI voice generation and are not the real voices of the parties.
-
CASE: R v Struhs & Ors [2025] QSC 10
WARNING: disturbing content.
8-year-old Elizabeth Rose Struhs died on 7 Jan 2022 and her death was entirely preventable. Elizabeth was a diabetic and for two years, her condition had been managed and treated with insulin.
That all ended on 3 January 2022 when the decision was made to not give Elizabeth insulin ever again. That decision was made by her parents, with their support of their small home-based religious congregation.
This case will be covered in 5 parts.
In PART 1 you will be introduced to the members of The Saints, a conservative home-based religious group that rejected all medical treatment.
In PART 2 we will look at the events in July 2019 when young Elizabeth Struhs was diagnosed with diabetes. Kerrie, who was a devoted member of The Saints refused to seek medical care for her critically ill daughter.
In PART 3 we look at the first hearing in which Elizabeth's parents are charged with failure to provide their daughter with the necessaries of life, almost resulting in her death.
In PART 4 we will follow the changes in the Struhs family and the campaign of the collective members of The Saints to see that Elizabeth be taken off insulin, a campaign that would lead to Elizabeths death.
In PART 5, our final part, you will hear about the criminal trial of all 14 members of The Saints charged with manslaughter in relation to the unlawful death of Elizabeth Struhs.
NOTE: Voices of the parties have been produced by AI voice generation and are not the real voices of the parties.
-
CASE: R v Struhs & Ors [2025] QSC 10
WARNING: disturbing content.
8-year-old Elizabeth Rose Struhs died on 7 Jan 2022 and her death was entirely preventable. Elizabeth was a diabetic and for two years, her condition had been managed and treated with insulin.
That all ended on 3 January 2022 when the decision was made to not give Elizabeth insulin ever again. That decision was made by her parents, with their support of their small home-based religious congregation.
This case will be covered in 5 parts.
In PART 1 you will be introduced to the members of The Saints, a conservative home-based religious group that rejected all medical treatment.
In PART 2 we will look at the events in July 2019 when young Elizabeth Struhs was diagnosed with diabetes. Kerrie, who was a devoted member of The Saints refused to seek medical care for her critically ill daughter.
In PART 3 we look at the first hearing in which Elizabeth's parents are charged with failure to provide their daughter with the necessaries of life, almost resulting in her death.
In PART 4 we will follow the changes in the Struhs family and the campaign of the collective members of The Saints to see that Elizabeth be taken off insulin, a campaign that would lead to Elizabeths death.
In PART 5, our final part, you will hear about the criminal trial of all 14 members of The Saints charged with manslaughter in relation to the unlawful death of Elizabeth Struhs.
NOTE: Voices of the parties have been produced by AI voice generation and are not the real voices of the parties.
-
CASE: R v Toby McVoy [2024] NSWDC 534
WARNING: Disturbing content
Toby McVoy was sentenced to 3 years and 2 months imprisonment for domestic violence offences against his former partner, referred to only as "XP".
McVoy appealed against his sentence, arguing that it was too severe.
His new partner "M" gave evidence on his behalf, seeking to have McVoy released earlier; she was pregnant with his child which they wanted to raise together.
McVoy stated that he would be willing to do counselling for anger management and domestic violence.
However, DCJ Wass took note of McVoy's history of previous DV offences and stated that:
"He offends against women when he is in relationships. He offends against women even when he is engaging in highly intimate acts with them, presumably done as some act or love or at least affection. He offends against women when he does not get what he wants. He offends against women in order to humiliate, intimidate and embarrass them."
His appeal was denied.
-
CASE: Simpson v Hodges [2007] NSWSC 1230
Pamela Amy Simpson died on 14 July 2004. She was survived by her two children: a son named Howard Collins Newby Simpson, and a daughter named Shelley Emma Elizabeth Hodges. Unfortunately, Pamela’s death kicked-off many used of litigation between her two children.
Eight months before Pamela's death, $200,000 was transferred from her bank account to her daughter Shelley's account. Shelley claimed that it was a gift; a contribution to the costs of renovating Shelley's house for Pamela to live in.
Howard alleged that Shelley had taken the money without their mother's knowledge or consent. But could he prove it?
-
CASE: Seymour v Seymour [2024] NSWSC 699
WARNING: disturbing content; DV.
In 1971, Terence Seymour became the father to a little boy named Mark Seymour. 3 years later, Terence left his family and had little contact with his son after that.
Fast forward to 1991 and Terence married Helen Mary Seymour. He was still married to Helen at the date of his death 31 years later in July 2022.
3 weeks before he died, Terence had made his last Will that left his entire estate to Helen.
Mark made an application seeking provision from his late father's estate.
What responsibility did Terence have to provide for the son he had left behind?
-
CASE: QZH [2023] NSWCATGD 21
The pseudonyms:
QZH (the person of interest): "Q" or "the father"
UBH (spouse): "U-B" or "the mother"
KAH (son, applicant): "KAH" or "the good son"
OYH (son, attorney/guardian): "OYAH" or "the other son"
In this case, we have an adult son (referred to as OYH) who has moved back in with his parents. All of his possessions cluttered up the house, to the extent that his parents (both in their 80s) were forced to sleep on a mattress on the floor.
The other son (referred to as KAH) was concerned that his parents were not receiving adequate care at home. He was also concerned because OYH was appointed as attorney and guardian for their parents, and KAH did not believe that OYH was acting in their best interests.
During the time that OYH was living with the parents, the parent's net worth dropped by about $1,250,000.
He applied to the Tribunal to have OYH removed.
-
CASE: Schnur & Urbina [2024] FedCFamC1F 374; Kleid v Schnur [2024] FedCFamC1A 236
In April 2024, a family law parenting matter was derailed on the 1st day of trial due to the conduct of the mother's barrister.
The barrister, referred to as Mr B, admitted to not having read all the case materials, to scheduling another court appearance on the same day as the 1st day of trial, and was later discovered not to be eligible to appear in a Federal Court.
This decision related to the father's application for Mr B to be liable for the father's wasted legal costs.
But at the heart of it, the case demonstrates the immense faith and reliance both the client and the Court places in legal representatives to know not only the relevant law, but also the legal processes, and to contribute to a just and effective legal system.
-
CASE: Fenwick, Re; Application of J.R. Fenwick & Re Charles [2009] NSWSC 530
WARNING: Disturbing content; child abuse
In this 2009 decision, Justice Palmer compared two different applications for a Court made Will (known as a Statutory Will).
Robert Fenwick had made a Will in 1987. Ten years later, he suffered a severe head injury at work which resulted in permanent cognitive impairment.
It was likely that the beneficiaries in his 1987 would die before him, causing an intestacy and Robert's more than $2million estate passing to the State government. To avoid that, Robert's brother John applied for a Statutory Will that would result in Robert's estate passing to his cousin's children.
The other application was in relation to an 11-year-old child who was given the pseudonym of Charles. Charles had suffered severe and irreversible brain damage when he was 4 months old. His medical condition also meant that he had a diminished life expectancy.
Charles received a victim's compensation payment which was managed by the Public Trustee on his behalf.
Charles was going to die intestate (without a Will), which was likely to result in his estate passing to his parents. Yet it was his parents who were suspected of having caused Charles' injuries when he was 4 months old.
The Public Trustee applied for a Statutory Will to be made for Charles that would leave his estate to his sister.
These differing applications were used as an opportunity to assess the approach of the Court to Statutory Will applications.
Justice Palmer was critical of the approach at the time to engage in what he referred to as a "fictitious test" whereby the Court pretended that the incapacitated person did have capacity in order to determine what Will that person would make.
Instead, he adopted this this test: is there a fairly good chance that a reasonable person, faced with these circumstances, would execute the Will that is proposed?
-
CASE: Allan v Dobbins & Ors [2024] QDC 169
When David Allan died on 14 June 2020, his Will left most of his estate to 3 of his 7 adult children.
Of the remaining 4 children, 3 were left with a mere $50 each and the last - Noel - was left nothing.
For decades, Noel had worked the family farm and been in partnership with his parents. But the partnership ended in 1998 when Noel threatened to shoot his father.
Noel walked away from the partnership with one-third of the family farm.
In David's Will, he expressly stated that he made no provision for Noel because Noel had received enough already.
Noel applied for further provision from the estate. Although he did not fully disclose his financial circumstances, it was determined that he was worse off financially then the three siblings set to inherit the majority of the estate.
Justice Allen determined that:
"The Court is not, on the evidence, in a position to gainsay the view of the testator... that the applicant had received "more than his fair share" of the estate during the testator's lifetime..."
Noel's application was dismissed.
- Mehr anzeigen
