Let's celebrate the best holiday of the year with some funny Halloween legal cases!

Thanks to Matt, my co-host for this episode <3

CASE: Suzanne Dale Smith by her next friend the Public Trustee -v- Marion Kathryn Partridge as executor of the Estate of Thomas Smith [2018] WASC 128

Marion was the executor of her late father Thomas Smith's estate. In her capacity as executor, she transferred Thomas's house into her name, and held all of the funds in his estate.

The Court Ordered that Thomas's other daughter, Suzanne, also receive provision from Thomas's estate.

That's when Marion went to ground. She didn't comply with the Court Orders to pay Suzanne her money.

Suzanne started new proceedings against Marion, seeking to have Marion removed from the position of executor. Marion was ordered to appear before the Court, but she didn't.

It is a disturbing thing when the executor uses the law to get all of the deceased's assets and then hides from the responsibilities of that position.

CASE: Napier Keen Pty Ltd v Smith [2023] NSWSC 1134

Beverley was a bookkeeper for the law firm Keen Lawyers for 16 years.

After Beverley resigned, her boss Mr Keen discovered that Beverley had been taking money from the business. Over a period of 7 years, she siphoned over $1 million from the firm.

Unfortunately, by the time the theft was discovered, Beverley had lost most of the funds in pokie machines.

The firm sued not only Beverley, but also her partner Gregory. Although Gregory was not involved the the thefts and had no knowledge of them, the firm wanted him to be liable to repay them then stolen funds.

Can a spouse be financially liable for what the money their partner steals?

CASE: Ashton v Pratt (No 2) [2012] NSWSC 3

Madison Ashton provided escort services to the late Richard Pratt, a married man of exceptional wealth. She would provide such services from time to time and for reward.

When Pratt ended the relationship in 2004, Ashton sued him to enforce their contract.

According to Ashton, if she left the escort business and became Pratt's mistress, Pratt agreed to create a trust fund of $2.5 million for each of her two children and pay her an allowance of $500,000 per year .

Before the case went to hearing, Pratt died in 2009 and Ashton found herself suing his estate and his widow.

CASE: Hughes v Sangster [2019] ACTSC 178

Christine Hughes and her daughter Martell Sangster decided to combine their finances and buy a house together.

Christine contributed 100% of the purchase price, but was only registered on title as owning 50%. Martell had promised that she would pay her mother 50% of the purchase price as soon as she sold her existing house.

They all moved into the new home together: Christine, her daughter Martell, Martell's husband Dr Sangster and their three children.

Several years later, the arrangement ended and for years Christine and her daughter disputed over how the proceeds from the sale of the house would be divided. Martell had only ever paid for 5% of the original purchase price but she was the registered owner of 50%.

It was up to Christine to prove to the Court that was entitled to more than 50% of the proceeds.

CASE: Re Estate Condon; Battenberg v Phillips [2017] NSWSC 1813

Blanche Minnie Condon died in 2016 leaving behind an estate worth about $7m. She had made her last Will only a few weeks before her death. Her Will made no provision for her nephew Andrew Battenberg, who was living in Scotland.

Andrew challenged the validity of the last Will. He much preferred Blanche’s earlier Wills in which he got a little something.

The catch? What makes this case different? Andrew had no assets in Australia, which made the executors of Blanche’s estate nervous about recouping legal costs if Andrew lost his case. It would take additional time and money to enforce any NSW court orders in Scotland. The executors asked the court for security for costs — basically, a legal “just in case” deposit.

In Part 1 we looked at the executor's claim for security for costs.

In this Part 2 we look at Andrew's challenge to the validity of the last Will and whether it was successful.

CASE: Re Estate Condon; Battenberg v Phillips [2017] NSWSC 1813

Blanche Minnie Condon died in 2016 leaving behind an estate worth about $7m. She had made her last Will only a few weeks before her death. Her Will made no provision for her nephew Andrew Battenberg, who was living in Scotland.

Andrew challenged the validity of the last Will. He much preferred Blanche’s earlier Wills in which he got a little something.

The catch? What makes this case different? Andrew had no assets in Australia, which made the executors of Blanche’s estate nervous about recouping legal costs if Andrew lost his case. It would take additional time and money to enforce any NSW court orders in Scotland. The executors asked the court for security for costs — basically, a legal “just in case” deposit.

In Part 1 we look at the executor's claim for security for costs.

In Part 2 we look at Andrew's challenge to the validity of the last Will and whether it was successful.

CASE: KNQ [2019] NSWCATGD 19

Despite the almost comical feel of the term “granny napping”, it is a serious problem that involves taking control over an older person’s life, isolating them from family and support networks, in order to get a financial advantage or other personal reasons. It is generally a traumatic experience for everyone involved.

In this case, everyone agreed that the older person KNQ (referred to in the episode as "Kate") was in need of full-time care in a nursing home. Her doctors agreed, the Aged Care Assessment Team agreed, her daughter agreed, and one of her sons agreed.

The only one who didn't agree was 'Kate's' son LAB (referred to as "Larry" in the episode).

On the very same day that the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal appointed the NSW Public Guardian to be Kate's guardian, Larry absconded with Kate across the border to the Canberra, ACT.

This kicked off further proceedings in the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal and the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal to determine who should be Kate's guardian and raised the question - If one Tribunal makes an order, can the other Tribunal overrule it?