This week Jackson J admitted a video recording to probate, made by the deceased and comprising a file on his personal computer. In it, the deceased said "My girlfriend would like me to do a will before I pick up my motorcycle. As I am too lazy, I’ll just say it... I’ll fill out the … Continue reading Another video will
I am really excited to be named one of the five preeminent junior counsel for the whole of Australia in the 2018 Doyle's List for "Leading Wills & Estates Litigation Barristers – Australia". Also, the only Queenslander, and the only female barrister on the preeminent list. You can view the list here.
Judgment was given and probate granted yesterday in the well-publicised case of the mobile phone video will. Reasons yet to be published (they were given ex temp, but his Honour has indicated he intends to publish them), I will post them when they are. See the Courier Mail article here. A lot of fellow succession … Continue reading Mobile phone video recording admitted to probate
What a fascinating case, wish I could have been in it! I love the forfeiture rule. In a recent WA judgment a question arose as to the operation of the forfeiture rule, which prevents a killer from benefiting from the unlawful killing. The question in Public Trustee (WA) -v- Mack was whether a son, who was … Continue reading Interesting Q on Operation of the Forfeiture Rule – is an indirect benefit prohibited?
The Qld Court of Appeal has ruled that a child by aboriginal culture is not a "child" of a deceased person for the purposes of intestacy, or family provision laws. The appellant administrator was the only surviving parent of the deceased. The deceased had no biological children. The respondent is the biological nephew of the … Continue reading When is a “child” a child?
The deceased died intestate. The respondent alleged he was her de facto spouse. A finding was made by the trial judge that he was not. He appealed that decision. Security for costs of the appeal was sought, and ordered in the sum of $10,000. Read Burton v Spencer here.
The NSW Supreme Court has held that a couple who did not live together, were nevertheless de facto partners for the purposes of intestacy rules. Read NSW Trustee and Guardian v McGrath here.
The Supreme Court of Queensland has held that an aboriginal person who was the biological nephew of a deceased person, but regarded by traditional Aboriginal custom as her child, may indeed be a "child" or "issue" for the purposes of both Part 3 (the intestacy provisions) and Part 4 (family provision) of the Succession Act 1981 (Qld). An … Continue reading