“My sentence for drug supply is excessive. I’m already punished by media attention and the loss of my career.” Which case won?
A case on appeal in NSW focused on whether a sentence handed down for drug supply charges was excessive.
In June 2015, a young man was apprehended by police and found to be in possession of a substantial quantity of illegal recreational drugs. This included 17 MDMA tablets, 100 MDA tablets, 338.8 grams of 1,4-butanediol (or “bute”, an alternative to the drug GHB), and 1.3728 kilograms of gamma-butyrolactone (GBL), as well as $3,000 in cash.
The man was charged with two counts of supply of a prohibited drug and one count of supply of a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, along with other offences.
“He never revoked the will which left his estate to me.” Which case won?
A NSW case revolved around the question of whether or not a man had revoked a will, and whether his intentions were better reflected by a newer, unsigned will.
In the years prior to his death at the age of 87, the man instructed his solicitor on a number of occasions to prepare a draft will for him. It was the man’s practice to attend to the signing and witnessing of a draft will received from his solicitor himself, prior to returning the completed will to his solicitor for safe keeping.
In 2015 the man made a will leaving everything to his friend of many years’ standing.
Laws banning Nazi symbols and salutes lead to penalties
Sovereign citizen gobbledygook never wins
Is your business ready for anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CTF)?
“She was already in negotiations with our competitor while still working for us.” Which case won?
A case heard in Victoria concerned a finance executive who was taken to court by her former employer after she resigned and went to work for a competitor. Aware she had been in job negotiations while it still employed her, the former employer sought to enforce the restraint clause in her contract.
A large clothing retailer with outlets all over Australia employed a chief financial officer (CFO), based in Victoria. The CFO had worked in finance at a senior level in various industries, including apparel retail, although some considerable time prior to the events giving rise to the litigation.
The CFO started working for the retailer in January 2016. She and the company had negotiated an employment contract which included a clause purporting to restrict her ability to work for the retailer’s competitors after her employment came to an end.
While the CFO’s salary package was substantial (close to half a million dollars per annum), the contract contained a probationary period provision. It was asserted in evidence that this was because while the CFO had previously worked in apparel retail, she had not done so for some time and was instead coming from the health care industry.
No-one laughing as Tickle v Giggle asks, what is a woman?
Who is responsible for AI mistakes?
“The Family Court was misled by my husband’s undervalued assets.” Which case won?
A case heard in 2014 and appealed in 2016 concerned a claim by an ex-wife that the property settlement following her divorce from her ex-husband was calculated on the basis of undervalued assets and should be set aside.
A couple moved in together in 1992 and married in 1997, but ultimately separated and were divorced in 2005. In July 2005, they reached an agreement on how to divide their property and jointly applied for consent orders, which were made by the Family Court.
The consent orders provided that the wife would receive payment of $185,000 and the title to one property (property V), while the husband would receive the title to two properties (property D and property T) and shares in an unprofitable business.
“The brothel failed in its duty of disclosure, so its fire insurance policy is invalid.” Which case won?
A NSW case heard in the Supreme Court and then the Court of Appeal concerned a dispute over whether an insurer was obliged to pay out on a fire insurance policy.
On 1 January 2012, there was a fire in a brothel which was run from premises in the Australian Capital Territory. The extent of damage from the fire was such that the brothel had to cease trading.
The brothel was insured under a specialised Adult Industry Insurance Policy, which provided cover against property damage, including by fire, and public and product liability.
The insurance was initially issued for the period 3 September 2010 to 3 September 2011 and subsequently renewed for 12 months to 3 September 2012.
After the fire, the company that ran the brothel made a claim under the renewed insurance policy, which was current at the time of the fire.
What do the different courts in NSW do?
The ear in the freezer, or why interfering with a corpse is a bad idea
“He died because she didn’t ring triple zero. It’s manslaughter.” Which case won?
The deceased, the accused and another man were all misusers of prescription medications, in particular OxyContin. This is a brand name of oxycodone, an opioid drug prescribed by doctors for pain relief and misused by some for recreational purposes. They would “mull up” the tablets (ie dissolve them in water in a spoon) and then inject the drug intravenously.
On one particular day, the group of three had procured some Xanax, a short-acting benzodiazepine which is prescribed by doctors to relieve anxiety and which is also misused by some for the purpose of intoxication.
While there was disagreement about the number of Xanax tablets procured and who took how many of those tablets, the court determined that all three members of the group had had some of the tablets.
After this, the three went to the home of another man and swapped some alcohol, which they had previously stolen, for OxyContin. Each of the three took some OxyContin.
My stepfather didn’t make adequate provision for me in his will.” Which case won?
A case heard in NSW involved a dispute over whether a man had made adequate provision for his stepdaughter in his will.
The man died in November 2017.
The gross value of his estate at the date of his death was about $205,000.
He and his first wife had two children together, who resided in the United Kingdom.
The man met his second wife in Australia in 1984, and they married in 1986.
They had no children together. However, the man’s second wife had one child, who became his stepdaughter.
The second wife died in 2015, leaving her entire estate to her husband, save for a silver belt which she left to her daughter.
In 2012, the man had made a will in which his stepdaughter was named as a substitute beneficiary in the event of her mother dying before him.
However, in 2016 he made a new will, in which he left nothing to his stepdaughter. Instead he left the whole of his estate to his biological children and grandchildren.
After payment of debts and funeral and testamentary expenses, each of his children was to receive 40 per cent of his estate, his granddaughter ten per cent, and his grandsons who were living at the date of his death the remaining ten per cent divided between them.
It’s not over till it’s over – fighting off a winding up order under section 482
How to use the law to recover a business debt
“The vendors only want to rescind the contract because the property’s value increased.” Which case won?
A dispute heard in NSW was between the buyer of a property and its vendors, who wanted to rescind the contract of sale after the sunset date had passed.
The parties entered into a conveyancing transaction for off-the-plan (unregistered) residential land in Picton, NSW.
The vendors were husband and wife. The wife signed the contract of sale on behalf of her husband. The purchaser signed the counterpart contract and the contracts were exchanged on 2 July 2015.
The contract contained several special conditions, one of which was that the plan of subdivision had to be registered within six months of the date of the contract (commonly referred to as a “sunset date”).
If the vendor did everything reasonably necessary to register the plan of subdivision but failed to do so within this time, it would enable either party to rescind – that is, terminate the contract.
