WARNING: Disturbing content; discussion of suicide.

In 2017 a husband died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Just before his death, he had left a voice message on his friend's phone stating that he wanted his life insurance to be paid to his children ($3 million each) and the rest of his estate to his wife.

He then made a voice recording on a mini tape recorder stating the same thing.

Did either voice recording qualify to be an informal Will? Only one of them did. But why?

CASE: Re Estate of Wai Fun Chan [2015] NSWSC 1107

A video Will may seem like a great idea! So much more personal than a legal document full of undecipherable jargon and paragraphs that run on for pages.

But the legal hassle it creates!

Wai Fun Chan had made a written Will but only a few days later decided to update her Will via video recording.

First hassle was making the video into a more easily accessible format - a written document. A transcription had to be created and verified.

Second hassle was determining whether the video qualified as an informal Will. Could the video be legally upheld even though it didn't fulfil the requirements for a valid Will?

Third hassle was the involvement of a beneficiary in the creation of the video. Wai Fun left a larger share of her estate to her daughter Deborah in the video, and Deborah was also behind the camera making the video. Did the gift to her fail because she was a witness to the "Will"?

CASE: The Public Trustee of Queensland v The Public Trustee of Queensland & Ors [2014] QSC 47

WARNING: Disturbing content of suicide and death.

Francis Ward, who went by the name Frank, died in June 2009 as a result of a drug overdose. He left an estate worth about $140,000.

Two years before his death, Frank had made a homemade Will which appointed his friend Merin Nielsen as his executor and left his estate to Merin.

In 2012, Merin was convicted of having assisted Frank to commit suicide. It was Merin who travelled to Mexico to procure the drugs that resulted in Frank's death.

Merin sought leniency on the basis that Frank had a number of serious medical conditions and had an intense fear of becoming disabled.

Two significant questions for the Court were:

1. Was Frank's medical condition terminal or debilitating?

2. Were Merin's actions influenced by the inheritance he would receive on Frank's death?

CASE: Gill v Garrett [2020] NSWSC 795; Gill v Garrett (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 1473

Dr Bill Garrett was a brilliant medical scientist, who in the 1960s was one of the small team of Australians who developed ultrasound for monitoring pregnancies.

In 1996 an unlikely friendship formed between the good doctor and a man 30 years his junior, Jason Gill. They met at a pub in Paddington where Jason was the life of the party. He invited Dr Garrett to join his trivia team and they would frequently meet at the Pub to eat and drink, with the doctor footing the bill.

When Jason's lease expired in 2003, he moved with Dr Garrett. It was supposed to be a temporary arrangement but Jason eventually became Dr Garrett's carer.

However, the care Jason provided the ailing doctor was substandard at best and included drinking binges and episodes of night-wandering.

When Dr Garret died in November 2015, his children politely asked Jason to leave the house. He refused, claiming that the doctor had promised to give him his $2 million house.

Jason also made an application seeking provision from Dr Garrett's estate.

What happens when there are co-owners to land, one owner wants to sell and the other doesn't?

A co-owner can apply for an order under section 66G of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) in which trustees are appointed to take charge of the property and sell it.

In this episode we look at some examples.

Van Oosterum v Van Oosterum [2011] NSWSC 663

Farming property owned 50% by Edward and 50% by his son Glenn, daughter Leonie and son-in-law Matthew.

After a family breakdown the children want to sell the property and Edward does not.

Shah v Sanjiv [2014] NSWSC 1535

Shah and Sanjiv were husband and wife who had separated and going through family law proceedings.

But the family law proceedings were taking too long for the husband who wanted to sell the matrimonial home while the market was still high.

Malouf & Cameron [2024] QSC 3

Mrs. Cameron owned 50% of a 100 acre shorefront property at Noosa North Shores. When she failed to sell her share to Ms Middleton and Mr Malouf, they bought out her co-owners and made an application to force Mrs. Cameron to sell.

& more...

CASE: Alan John Hyland as executor of the estate of the late John Walter Popham Luscombe v Healy [2013] NSWSC 1513

Herbert Walter Luscombe died in January 2009 at the age of 98. He left an estate worth $3.4 million that he had intended to leave to his closest relative, his nephew John Luscombe.

It was a surprise to everyone when Laura Healy came forward to claim that she and Herbert had been friends for 17 years and had been lovers.

She even had Herbert's last Will signed by him on 28 October 2006, in which he left his entire estate to Laura.

There was something fishy about this Will though. It wasn't made with his usual solicitor. It was supposedly signed in the lobby of a club in front of two strangers. It also wasn't Herbert's normal signature on the documents.

Was it a forgery? Had Herbert even known Laura?

CASE: Able Australia Services v Yammas [2010] VSC 237

Beryl Rose Simmons (‘the deceased’) died on 19 February 2007. She was 96 years old. About a year earlier, on 23 March 2006, she had signed her last Will.

The last Will made some gifts to her nephew David, three grand-nieces and two charities. It left the residue of her estate (worth about $400,000) to her friend John Yammas.

David was suspicious about the Will. Able Australia Services (formerly the Deafblind Association) had been the primary beneficiary under Beryl's 2004. What had changed to cause Beryl to leave nothing to the charity and most of her estate to her friend?

The last Will was made in suspicious circumstances, including that John Yammas had helped to draft the Will and that the Will was signed at a chemist on the same day Beryl was discharged from hospital and moved into residential aged care.

Did Beryl know what she was doing when she made her last Will?

CASE: Adams v R [2019] NSWCCA 295

Edna Pearson was 77 years old and suffering from vascular dementia when she met 34-year-old Victoria Adams.

Victoria quickly became Edna's cleaner. She and her family inserted themselves into Edna’s life, providing assistance until Edna was completely dependent upon them.

But theirs was not a fortuitous and altruistic friendship. Victoria had identified Edna as elderly, incapacitated person of significant means. She established and maintained a relationship with Edna for the sole purpose of gaining a financial benefit.

The plan might have been successful too, had Victoria not taken it too far by forging Edna’s Will. An action which led her facing criminal charges and a prison sentence.

Frank v Angell [2024] NSWSC 158

Max Frederick Willis had a keen interest in the development of the Solomon Islands and in providing opportunities for people from the Solomon Islands to come to Australia to obtain tertiary qualifications.

From 2015 until his death in 2021, Sharon Frank and her family lived in Max's house while she studied a Bachelor of Arts and a Masters of Arts at Western Sydney University.

As well as free accommodation, Max loaned Sharon and her family significant funds to help them get by.

Max died on 18 August 2021.

His Will left Sharon $50,000 and rent free accommodation for a year, which would allow Sharon to finish her Masters degree and begin work as a teacher.

However, Sharon never completed her Masters degree. She and her husband Kim Hagie made an application seeking further provision from Max's estate.

Willmott v McCourt [2002] WASC 210

Cecil Ray French died at Murray District Hospital in Pinjarra on 5 August 1999. He was 87 years old.

During the 3 days he was in hospital with a chest infection, he was confused and falling in and out of consciousness. In one of his barely conscious moments, a friend who was visiting him helped him lift his arm and directed his hand to sign his last Will.

After Cecil's death, the first question for everyone was "Did Cecil know what he was signing?"

Law Society of New South Wales v Hocking [2017] NSWCATOD 19

From July 2009 to January 2014, Bruce Percy Hocking was working as a solicitor. He was also the director of DC Legal Pty Ltd.

During that time, the firm mishandled trust money, used client money to pay the firm's bills, charged excessive fees, and misappropriated client money.

In March 2014, the NSW applied to have Hocking removed from the Roll of Local Lawyers for professional misconduct and for misleading the Law Society investigator.

Hocking argued that he wasn't involved in the relevant client matters and that he wasn't responsible for the managing the trust accounts, despite being the director of the firm throughout the relevant time period.