CASE: Re Pacella [2019] VSC 170

Some requests, however, can be quite extravagant and outlandish.

Francesco Pacella wanted a family crypt. A large crypt that could fit 20 coffins, to be built in a cemetery in Italy.

He left $200,000 in his Will to be used for this purpose and tasked his nephew Emidio with the job of building the crypt.

Was such a provision legally enforceable?

CASE: R v Thompson, David; R v Thompson, Phillip [2019] NSWSC 1396

WARNING: Disturbing content

If you are responsible for the care of a person and they die because you have failed to provide that care, you may be

This was the charge that was brought against David and Phillip Thompson when their mother died in September 2017.

In 2017, Shirley Thompson was 72 years old and living in an apartment in Western Sydney wit her two sons.

On 23 August, Shirley wasn't speaking, wasn't drinking or eating and had bed sores. Her sons called an ambulance.

Shirley died of sepsis 10 days after she was admitted to hospital.

Her sons were charged with manslaughter by gross criminal negligence.

CASE: Smith v Kenneth [2016] QCA 267

For people familiar with the best Aussie movie of all time - 'The Castle' - you will know that for a lawyer, being called "Dennis Denuto" is most definitely not a compliment.

That is what happened in this case. Solicitor Brett Smith was acting in a family law dispute. The husband on the other side, on several occasions, referred to him as "Dennis Denuto".

Brett took extreme offence and made a claim for damages for defamation.

The judge determined that the insult was defamatory, but that the public awareness of the insult was largely Brett's fault.

Before the defamation proceedings, 3 adults knew of the insult. After the proceedings and all the media attention it garnered.... let's say the proceedings did more damage than the insults did.

CASE: McCarthy v Tye [2017] NSWCA 284

Can a boarder and a housemate make a claim on your estate?

In some circumstances, the answer may be yes.

Peter McCarthy had been a boarder in the house of Diane Green from 2003 to 2014. He paid rent and his own expenses.

After 11 years of living together, they had become close friends and even went on a few holidays together.

After Diane's death in 2014, Peter made an application to receive a substantial part of her estate - mainly the house he was still living in.

He claimed that he was Diane's de facto spouse at the date of her death. Was he? Did he receive some of Diane's estate?

CASE: Badman v Drake [2008] NSWSC 1366

Dorothy Badman was 87 years old when she gave $345,000 to her hairdresser and friend Judith Drake.

Judith and her husband were about to lose their home. Dorothy agreed to give them the money and in exchange, she would live with there and escape the dreaded nursing home.

Before transferring the money, both Dorothy and Judith got legal advice from their own solicitors. The solicitors wanted to structure the transaction in such a way that it protected Dorothy's interest in the property.

The Drakes decided that the solicitors were only slowing things down. They were fired and the transfer went ahead in quick time.

Not long later and Dorothy was applying to the court to get her money back.

CASE: Leary v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2017] NSWSC 1113

Colleen Pidcock's Will left her estate to be divided equally between her 4 children... subject to the money they owed her.

Her son John Leary owed her $551,541. This was the amount of money that Colleen spent on John's legal fees from that time 8 years earlier when John had kidnapped his 3 year old daughter, absconded overseas, and tried to ransom the child back to her mother.

John was claiming that he never agreed to pay his mother back for the legal fees and he was actually wanting more of his mother's estate.

CASE: An Elderly Plaintiff NSW Trustee & Guardian v A Daughter and Granddaughter[2019] NSWSC 1747, Grant v Grant (No2) [2020] NSWSC 1288; Grant v Grant [2020] NSWCA 328; and Grant v Grant (No 3) [2021] NSWSC1.

Dr Alan Grant and Gwynneth Grant were a successful couple, raising their five children in the secluded beachside village of Killcare.

It could have been an idyllic life but from from a young age, their eldest daughter Nerez created problems with her aggression and tantrums.

The whole family was affected by Nerez's drug and financial problems, and victims of her verbal abuse and harassment.

Dr Grant fell victim to Nerez's control and manipulation. While Mrs Grant left her husband and home to escape Nerez's abuse.

When Mrs Grant died in 2017, her Will made no provision for her daughter eldest daughter. Nerez filed a family provision application seeking provision from her mother's estate.

Around the same time, there were legal proceedings against Nerez seeking for the return of the Killcare property to Dr Grant as well as $130,000 Nerez had transferred from his accounts.

WARNING: Content includes verbal and physical abuse and foul language.

CASE: Pietsch and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2024] AATA 2678

But there was a bug in their budding romance. For 6 years Russell had been receiving the age pension at the single rate and now that he was in a relationship, his payments were cut.

Russell was not going to take this lying down! He appealed all the way to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The key question for consideration was this: Was there any special reason why Russell should continue to receive the single age pension when he was not single?

CASE: Wallis v Rudek [2020] NSWSC 162; Wallis v Rudek (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 215

Yuri & Olga Wallis were in financial crisis. They were about to lose their house in Pennant Hills, Sydney.

The property was worth $950,000 but they owed $840,000 to the bank and they were unable to pay the mortgage.

They asked their daughter Suzanne to buy them out on the agreement that Suzanne and her family would live in the upstairs dwelling and they would live in the downstairs dwelling.

Suzanne stepped up to help. But Yuri was not a good neighbour. He prevented much needed repairs to the property, he invaded the upstairs space, and he verbally abused Suzanne's husband and children.

When Suzanne tried to evict them, her parents refused to leave.

CASE: Fiorenza v Fiorenza [2024] NSWSC 549

This case involves a dispute between Irene Fiorenza and her son Matthew Fiorenza over ownership of the property at 69 Amherst Street, Cammeray.

Irene had inherited the property from her late mother in 2016 and had let her son Matthew and his family live there rent-free. In 2018, she transferred a 10% interest in the property to Matthew.

In 2023, Irene asked Matthew to either begin paying rent or to leave the property. Instead, Matthew claimed that his mother had promised to give him the Cammeray property and made an application for the Court to transfer the property to him.