Growing Stronger episode #21: CHL Halloween Special

The staff of CHL (Catherine Henry Lawyers) join in for this super Halloween special episode. In this episode, we share short stories about law cases against ghosts, flammable costumes, haunted house mishaps and more frightening, funny legal cases.

This episode is all about the fun side of the law – no serious stuff here.

Facebook: link to the Growing Stronger Podcast Group https://www.facebook.com/groups/114844900573124

This year, 31 October is NSW Grandparents Day and, in recognition, we’re looking at a family law case that demonstrates some of the legal rights grandparents have when the parents are separating or when there are issues with who the children should live with. In this case, the maternal grandmother and aunt applied to the court for the 3 children to live with them.

Family Lawyer Rob Dilley joins me to share his expert knowledge in the complex world of family law.

WARNING: There is mention of suicidal ideation, alcohol and substance abuse, family violence and child abuse and neglect, you may prefer to skip this episode.

Case citation: Harty v Chilton [2021] FamCA 34

Facebook: link to the Growing Stronger Podcast Group https://www.facebook.com/groups/114844900573124

NOTES: While this podcast is aimed to be informative, it is not intended to be a substitute for legal advice. For any matter we discuss, we summarise, skip over parts that may be too technical and only generalise. You should still see a solicitor for complete advice that relates directly to your particular situation.

When your capacity is declining and you need to move into residential care, that’s when you need to have your affairs in place and ideally have a Power of Attorney already appointed to look after your finances.

But what happens when the person you trusted, the one that you have appointed as attorney sees that they now have access to your money and property, and they decide to help themselves? How can this be fixed?

That’s the type of case we’re looking at today.

I’m going to give you 2 case examples to show you what it can look like and how the Courts deal with it. Then I’m going to give you some tips on what to do if you think your attorney or someone else’s attorney is misusing their powers. 

CITATIONS: Mary Alice Hughes by her Tutor NSW Trustee & Guardian v Hughes [2011] NSWSC 702 and Cohen v Cohen [2016] NSWSC 336.

Facebook: link to the Growing Stronger Podcast Group https://www.facebook.com/groups/114844900573124

NOTES:

The case discussed in the episode is a NSW case, so what we’re discussing will be based on the law in NSW and is not intended to be taken to be applied Australia-wide.

While this podcast is aimed to be informative, it is not intended to be a substitute for legal advice. For any matter we discuss, we summarise, skip over parts that may be too technical and only generalise. You should still see a solicitor for complete advice that relates directly to your particular situation.

October 1st is International Day of Older Persons. A day for raising awareness about issues affecting older persons, such as challenges of an ageing population and elder abuse. It is also a day to appreciate the contributions that older people make to society and promote the development of a society for all ages.

In recognition, this episode will look at a form of elder abuse that is associated with inheritance impatience or feelings of entitlement to the assets of an older person. 

What happens if a Will has been made under pressure, harassment, or manipulation? Does it still stand? What can you do to overturn it?

In this case, we look at the last Will of Vasilka Janakievska and the ongoing attempts from her late husband’s brother to guilt, pressure and threaten her to leave him property in her will.

This case demonstrates how you might challenge the validity of a Will, but is also a lesson for what you can do to prevent a challenge to your Will.

CITATION: Petrovski v Nasev; The estate of Janakievska [2011] NSWSC 1275

Facebook: link to the Growing Stronger Podcast Group

NOTES:

The case discussed in the episode is a NSW case, so what we’re discussing will be based on the law in NSW and is not intended to be taken to be applied Australia-wide.

While this podcast is aimed to be informative, it is not intended to be a substitute for legal advice. For any matter we discuss, we summarise, skip over parts that may be too technical and only generalise. You should still see a solicitor for complete advice that relates directly to your particular situation.

For this special mini-episode we are looking at a quirky case that involved a person charged with criminal offences who claims that he can’t be charged because he consists of two separate legal entities. There was his flesh and blood corporeal self and then there was the “straw man” without legal personality. And because he lacked legal personality, he couldn’t be charged with a crime.

That was the claim made to the District Court of Queensland. Did it work?   

CITATION: R v Sweet [2021] QDC 216

NOTES:

The case discussed in the episode is a Queensland case, so what we’re discussing will be based on the law in Queensland and is not intended to be taken to be applied Australia-wide.

While this podcast is aimed to be informative, it is not intended to be a substitute for legal advice. For any matter we discuss, we summarise, skip over parts that may be too technical and only generalise. You should still see a solicitor for complete advice that relates directly to your particular situation.

Edward Leslie Cameron was the illegitimate son of prominent businessman John Hemmes. Even after a DNA test proved that Edward was John’s biological son, John continued to deny it and wanted nothing to do with him. Given that John never acknowledged Edward as his son, it probably surprised no one that John didn’t leave him anything in his Will. And that’s exactly what happened.With no provision made for him in his father’s will, Edward made a family provision application. This episode looks at whether that application was successful.

Case citation: Estate Hemmes; Cameron v Mead [2018] NSWSC 85

Facebook: link to the Growing Stronger Podcast Group

NOTES:

The case discussed in the episode is a NSW case, so what we’re discussing will be based on the law in NSW and is not intended to be taken to be applied Australia-wide.

While this podcast is aimed to be informative, it is not intended to be a substitute for legal advice. For any matter we discuss, we summarise, skip over parts that may be too technical and only generalise. You should still see a solicitor for complete advice that relates directly to your particular situation.

Dr Garrett’s young drinking buddy Jason moved in with him and became his live-in carer. For many years they lived together as the Doctor’s capacity diminished and his care needs increased. But Jason wasn’t the best carer. And although he received approximately $800,000 in financial benefits from the doctor, after the doctor’s death Jason made a claim on his estate.

Was he entitled to the Doctor’s home worth about $2m?

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

Facebook: link to the Growing Stronger Podcast Group https://www.facebook.com/groups/114844900573124

NOTES:

The case discussed in the episode is a NSW case, so what we’re discussing will be based on the law in NSW and is not intended to be taken to be applied Australia-wide.

While this podcast is aimed to be informative, it is not intended to be a substitute for legal advice. For any matter we discuss, we summarise, skip over parts that may be too technical and only generalise. You should still see a solicitor for complete advice that relates directly to your particular situation.

In this episode Tanya is joined by Michael Miller, financial adviser from Wealth Market.  

In a lot of ways, social security can be difficult to understand. To try to make some sense of it, we’re going to look at a couple of cases where people were denied social security, appealed the decision and were successful.

The first case involves a finding by Centrelink that two people were in a de facto relationship, which they denied. In our second case, in calculating how much aged care fees a woman would be required to pay, the counted all her assets but didn’t take into account some family loan.

Problems like these can happen to anyone, so all the more reason to talk about them and know what you can do if it happens to you.

Facebook: link to the Growing Stronger Podcast Group 

NOTES:

While this podcast is aimed to be informative, it is not intended to be a substitute for legal advice. For any matter we discuss, we summarise, skip over parts that may be too technical and only generalise. You should still see a solicitor for complete advice that relates directly to your particular situation.

WARNING:               This episode discusses cases of suicide that might be triggering. Listener discretion is advised.

Today we’re going to look at a couple of cases of informal wills – that is wills that don’t quite meet the legal requirements to be a valid will, in particular the requirements that the Will be in writing and signed by the testator in the presence of two witnesses.

In particular, we’re looking at wills that have not been written – wills that are video recordings and voice recordings.

We’re going to look at whether these can be enforced and demonstrate how not doing a written Will can cause your estate significant delay and additional expense.

Case citations: Re Marion Moyne Demowbray (unreported Burns J No 2443 of 2018); Re Estate of Carrigan [2018] QSC 206; Re Estate of Wai Fun Chan [2015] NSWSC 1107; Estate of Peter Anthony Pitman [2018] WASC 237

Like to Growing Stronger Podcast Group on Facebook

NOTES:

We’re looking at a couple of cases from various jurisdictions today – in the different jurisdictions, different legislation applies. 

While this podcast is aimed to be informative, it is not intended to be a substitute for legal advice. For any matter we discuss, we summarise, skip over parts that may be too technical and only generalise. You should still see a solicitor for complete advice that relates directly to your particular situation.

Mother and daughter decide that they’re going to live together and they’ll each contribute 50% to the acquisition of the property. Mother pays for it all up front. Seven years later and the daughter moves out; she still owns 50% despite only ever having paid about 5%.

What can the mother do to get her fair share? 

Case citation: Hughes v Sangster [2019] ACTSC 178

Link to Growing Stronger Podcast Group on Facebook

NOTES:

The case discussed in the episode is an ACT case, so what we’re discussing will be based on the law in the ACT and is not intended to be taken to be applied Australia-wide.

While this podcast is aimed to be informative, it is not intended to be a substitute for legal advice. For any matter we discuss, we summarise, skip over parts that may be too technical and only generalise. You should still see a solicitor for complete advice that relates directly to your particular situation.