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

In May 2020, Russell Pietsch was 70 years old and newly in love. His young bride Tresha was 18 years old and living in the Philippines.

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.

CASE: Rydzewski v Rydzewski [2024] NSWSC 802

Maria Rydzewski had 4 children: Kevin, Barbara, Danuta and Stan.

In July 2016, Danuta died and Maria (who was 91 years old at the time) was deeply affected by her daughter's death.

There became a rift in the family due to a dispute as to whether Stan had caused his mother to miss Danuta's funeral.

A year later, Maria transfers two properties to her daughter-in-law Jenny and one property to her granddaughter Krystina. The reason for the transfers? In gratitude for the care they provided her AND to prevent Stan from inheriting any share of the properties.

The transfers were done by a solicitor, Mr Ireland. Because Maria could not speak English, all of the instructions came from her translator, her daughter-in-law Jenny.

This case raised many questions, some that remained unanswered.

Did Stan cause his mother to miss Danuta's funeral?

Did Maria have capacity in 2017 when she transferred the properties?

Did she transfer the properties under influence or unconscionable conduct on the part of Jenny and Krystina?

Did Maria get adequate legal advice from her solicitor?

The answers to those questions would determine whether the property transfers would be voided.

CASE: Coss v Norman (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1490

WARNING: disturbing content; suicide

David Henry Norman and Rodney James Coss ("James") had been in a relationship from 2012.

They had separated in May 2019, 4 months before David’s death.

In the 4 months before his death, David had made 4 Wills. The last Will left most of most of his estate to David's sister Fiona, but also left a gift worth about $200,000 to James.

After David's death, James applied for further provision from the estate, claiming that his relationship with David had not ended.

Did the relationship end? Or did they only have a fight?

CASE: Petrovski v Nasev; the estate of Janakievska [2011] NSWSC 1275

Vasilka Janakievska, also known as Vasa Janakievska, died on 29 May 2009 at the age of 87 years.

During her life she made two Wills – one in April 1999 and another in December 2004.

For many years leading up to the execution of the 2004 Will, Vasilka was harassed and threatened by her brother-in-law Alex Nasev. He was demanding that she leave her Erskineville house to him.

In 2004 Alex took Vasilka to see his solicitor and was present when Vasilka signed her last Will in which she left him the Erskineville house as well as half the residue of her estate.

It was only after Vasilka's death in 2009 that her family found out about the 2004 Will. They argued that the 2004 Will was invalid on the basis that it was done under Alex's influence and that it did not reflect Vasilka's true wishes.

CASE: Jenny Yang v FCS Business Services Pty Ltd [2020] FWC 4560

Can you make an unfair dismissal case when the employee handed in their signed resignation letter?

You can if the person resigned due to the conduct of the employer.

Jenny Yang was accused of spreading rumours at the office Christmas party. In an odd situation, all the staff were invited to a meeting to vote on whether they had heard Jenny spreading rumours.

Jenny denied spreading the rumours but was not believed. She signed the resignation letter that was put in front of her, and left.

Shortly after, she filed an unfair dismissal claim.