CASE: Wertheim v Perpetual Trustee Company Limited [2021] NSWSC 1229Relationship come in all forms. The nuclear family dynamic is declining in prevalence.

One form that is becoming increasingly common is the blended family, where you have spouses who have no children together, but have children from a previous relationship.

Later-life de facto relationships come with different concerns. For example, both parties will usually be older and will have accrued their own savings, superannuation, assets and property by the time their current relationship started. They may agree that they will continue to be financial independent, that throughout their relationship they won't intermingle their funds, they will each pay their own way, and, on their death, their estate will go to their respective children or their biological family.

This is a sensible and reasonable decision to make. But after death, can the surviving de facto go against that agreement to make a claim on the estate?

CASE: Rex Phillip Tory v Sarjit Kaur Tory [2007] NSWSC 1078

In 1986, Sarjit Tory owned real estate with her former brother-in-law Rex Tory. The land had great potential for rezoning and development.

Sarjit and Rex agreed that Rex would make the arrangements and applications for rezoning and they would share the costs equally between themselves.

However, twenty years later and the property had still not been approved for rezoning.

Rex was in financial difficulty. He wanted to give up on the development plan and just sell the property.

Sarjit, as co-owner, did not want to sell the property.

Rex applied to the Supreme Court to force the sale of the property.

CASE: Kids' Kinder Childcare Pty Limited v The Department of Education [2024] NSWDC 345

WARNING: Disturbing content; child abuse

Parents are entitled to expect that when they leave their children at a childcare centre, their children will be properly cared for. That did not occur at Jumpstart Childcare in Menai.

Kids' Kinder Childcare Pty Limited, operating as Jumpstart Childcare, pleaded guilty to several offences including subjecting children to unreasonable discipline, failing to protect a child from a hazard, and failing to ensure the safety and wellbeing of children at its service.

After receiving their sentence - an arguably not-so hefty fine - the sole director, Thomas Fanous, appealed against the severity of the sentence. On reviewing the facts, the appeal court agreed that the sentence needed to be appealed, but because it was too lenient and the fine was increased.