Description
Pilkvist & Coburn (Deceased) [2019] FamCA 635
There are two interesting parts to this matter.
In the first part, covered in our previous episode, we looked at the family law application in which Ms Pilkvist claimed to have been in a de facto relationship with Mr Coburn for 5 years.
She was seeking a property division that would see her receive a 35% share of Mr Coburn's $11million estate.
Her application was unsuccessful and it was determined that she had only been his paid carer during that time.
But her application was doomed to fail from the start, which raised claims of professional negligence against Pilkvist's legal team.
This second part looks at the solicitor and barrister who represented Pilkvist in her unsuccessful claim. The solicitor Ms Beamish and the barrister Ms Farens were ordered to personally pay the legal costs of the successful party. They appealed that decision, arguing that they had only acted on the information provided by their client.
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...
Published 11/10/24
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...
Published 11/06/24