DPP v O'Neill [2015] VSC 25; DPP v O'Neill [2015] VSCA 325

WARNING: Disturbing content

In 2013, Michael Anthony O'Neill pleaded guilty to murdering his partner of 16 years, Stuart Rattle.

The relationship was marked with disputes and a power imbalance to culminated in the tragic events of 4 December 2013 in which Michael hit Stuart over the head with a frying pan and strangled him with a dog lead.

He left the corpse in their shared unit for a few days, before setting the unit on fire.

A key question of the case was motive. Did Michael kill his partner to hide the financial distress he caused for both them and their business? Or did Michael simply snap after one argument, and one insult too many?

Re Rattle [2018] VSC 249

In the last episode, we looked at the trial of Michael O'Neill who pleaded guilty to murdering his partner Stuart Rattle in 2013.

In this episode, we look at the complex legal proceedings that followed to determine who would inherit Stuart's $1million estate.

The proceedings involved:

Downie v Langham [2017] NSWSC 113

Just a short episode on an attorney called to account for their suspicious transactions.

Dianne Langham was the attorney for her aunt Gwen.

After Gwen's death, her son Rodney noticed suspicious transactions on her bank account. On investigation, he came to believe that Dianne had misappropriated $120,000 of her aunt Gwen's money.

Estate El Chami; Habib v El Chami [2016] NSWSC 1208

Elias Yacoub El Chami died on 23 February 2014, at the age of 92 years. He left an estate with a value of about $917,000.

Elias had made two Wills during his lifetime.

His first Will made in 1992 left his entire estate to his brother Salim.

His second and final Will made in 2014 left his entire estate to his neighbour Habib. This Will was made only 10 days before Elias' death.

Salim challenged the 2014 Will and was successful. The Court found that Elias had lacked testamentary capacity at the time it was made.

Comcare v PVYW [2013] HCA 41

Are you entitled to compensation if you are injured on a work trip?

Are you entitled to compensation if the injury occurs in your hotel room after the work is done for the day?

Are you entitled to compensation if you are injured while having sex in the hotel room?

Those are the questions that were answered in the case we are covering this episode.

Pilkvist & Coburn (Deceased) [2019] FamCA 635

There are two interesting parts to this matter.

In the first part, covered in our previous episode, we looked at the family law application in which Ms Pilkvist claimed to have been in a de facto relationship with Mr Coburn for 5 years.

She was seeking a property division that would see her receive a 35% share of Mr Coburn's $11million estate.

Her application was unsuccessful and it was determined that she had only been his paid carer during that time.

But her application was doomed to fail from the start, which raised claims of professional negligence against Pilkvist's legal team.

This second part looks at the solicitor and barrister who represented Pilkvist in her unsuccessful claim. The solicitor Ms Beamish and the barrister Ms Farens were ordered to personally pay the legal costs of the successful party. They appealed that decision, arguing that they had only acted on the information provided by their client.

Pilkvist & Coburn (Deceased) [2019] FamCA 635

There are two interesting parts to this matter.

First, there is the family law application from a supposed de facto partner, seeking a division of property.

Second, there is a criticism and reprimand of the solicitor and barrister who represented the applicant.

In this episode, we look at the family law application in which Ms Pilkvist claimed to have been in a de facto relationship with Mr Coburn for 5 years up until they were separated against their wills when Mr Coburn's guardian moved him into a nursing home.

She was seeking a property division that would see her receive a 35% share of Mr Coburn's $11million estate.

Her application was opposed on behalf of Mr Coburn, on the basis that they had never been in a relationship and that Ms Pilkvist had only been his paid carer.

Di Cecco v Contini [2004] VSC 211

Armando Contini died in 2002 leaving three adult children. His daughter Giuliana and his two sons Fulvio and Mario.

In the last 10 or so years of his life, there was a severe breakdown in Armando’s relationship with his two sons – involving two significant disputes and loss of contact.

In contrast, during that time Giuliana had stepped up to provide more care and companionship to her father.

This resulted in Armando executing his final Will to leave most of his estate to Giuliana and make minimal provisions for his sons.

After his death, the sons contested the estate claiming that their father did not have capacity at the time he made his last Will.

Armanda had anticipated that his sons would challenge his estate and he took steps to thwart them.

WARNING: This episode involves disturbing details of animal neglect and the death of animals.

Veterinary Practitioners Board of NSW v Johnson [2010] NSWADT 308

While Dr. Johnson's conduct was being investigated, the Board imposed practicing conditions upon him which he did not comply with.

At the same time, there were serious questions about Dr. Johnson's ability to run a veterinary practice given that three separate medical and pharmaceutical suppliers refused to do business with him due to non payment of his accounts.

Special thanks to voice actors Shay Riley-Lewis and Nichole Maude.

Alexander v Jansson; Jansson v Alexander [2009] NSWSC 1000

The death of his father and some family transfers resulted in Eric Martin Jansson owning the 2/3rds family home and farm with his mother who owned the remaining 1/3rd.

Eric and his mother Ellen lived together in the homestead for about 42 years as they ran a farming business together.

Eric died unexpectedly in 2005 at the age of 61. He died without a Will and his 2/3rd share in the family farm passed to his 4 children.

Ellen was living in the homestead and still working the farm at 93 years of age, when Eric's children decided they wanted to sell the farm and Ellen needed to go.

The grandchildren applied for a s66G order that would result in the forced sale of the property.

Ellen countered with her own family provision claim against her deceased son's estate.

In this difficult arrangement, could Ellen keep her home of 73 years?