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?