George Sclavos was a well-known member of his community in Leppington where her owned a pharmacy. George never married, never had children, and was 65 years old when he died suddenly of a heart attack in August 2013. Okan Yesilhat was 30 years younger than George. It therefore garnered more than a little attention and surprise when, after George’s death, Okan claimed that for 14 years they had been having a secret same-sex relationship. This secret relationship was the basis of Okan’s legal claims in relation to George's estate:a. his claim for family provision from George’s extensive estate, worth $6m at his death, b. his claim that extensive funds he had received from George were gifts and not loans, c. his claim that the George’s informal will had been fabricated. The big question was, did George and Okan really have a secret 14-year relationship or was the whole thing a fantasy, an elaborate story and elaborate deception intended to fleece the estate? Citation: • Yesilhat v Calokerinos [2015] NSWSC 1028• Calokerinos, Executor of the Estate of the late George Sclavos v Yesilhat [2017] NSWSC 666 (9 June 2017)• Calokerinos, Executor of the Estate of the late George Sclavos v Yesilhat (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 584 (22 May 2019)• Calokerinos, Executor of the Estate of the late George Sclavos v Yesilhat (No 3) [2019] NSWSC 1752 (13 December 2019)• Yesilhat v Calokerinos [2021] NSWCA 110 (28 May 2021)

George Sclavos was a well-known member of his community in Leppington where her owned a pharmacy. George never married, never had children, and was 65 years old when he died suddenly of a heart attack in August 2013. Okan Yesilhat was 30 years younger than George. It therefore garnered more than a little attention and surprise when, after George’s death, Okan claimed that for 14 years they had been having a secret same-sex relationship. This secret relationship was the basis of Okan’s legal claims in relation to George's estate:a. his claim for family provision from George’s extensive estate, worth $6m at his death, b. his claim that extensive funds he had received from George were gifts and not loans, c. his claim that the George’s informal will had been fabricated. The big question was, did George and Okan really have a secret 14-year relationship or was the whole thing a fantasy, an elaborate story and elaborate deception intended to fleece the estate? Citation: Yesilhat v Calokerinos [2015] NSWSC 1028Calokerinos, Executor of the Estate of the late George Sclavos v Yesilhat [2017] NSWSC 666 (9 June 2017)Calokerinos, Executor of the Estate of the late George Sclavos v Yesilhat (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 584 (22 May 2019)Calokerinos, Executor of the Estate of the late George Sclavos v Yesilhat (No 3) [2019] NSWSC 1752 (13 December 2019)Yesilhat v Calokerinos [2021] NSWCA 110 (28 May 2021)

George Sclavos was a well-known member of his community in Leppington where her owned a pharmacy. George never married, never had children, and was 65 years old when he died suddenly of a heart attack in August 2013. Okan Yesilhat was 30 years younger than George. It therefore garnered more than a little attention and surprise when, after George’s death, Okan claimed that for 14 years they had been having a secret same-sex relationship. This secret relationship was the basis of Okan’s legal claims in relation to George's estate:a. his claim for family provision from George’s extensive estate, worth $6m at his death, b. his claim that extensive funds he had received from George were gifts and not loans, c. his claim that the George’s informal will had been fabricated. The big question was, did George and Okan really have a secret 14-year relationship or was the whole thing a fantasy, an elaborate story and elaborate deception intended to fleece the estate? Citation: Yesilhat v Calokerinos [2015] NSWSC 1028Calokerinos, Executor of the Estate of the late George Sclavos v Yesilhat [2017] NSWSC 666 (9 June 2017)Calokerinos, Executor of the Estate of the late George Sclavos v Yesilhat (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 584 (22 May 2019)Calokerinos, Executor of the Estate of the late George Sclavos v Yesilhat (No 3) [2019] NSWSC 1752 (13 December 2019)Yesilhat v Calokerinos [2021] NSWCA 110 (28 May 2021)

CASE: Re the will of William Ian Southey [2025] VSC 801Two months before his death, William Ian Southey made a Will leaving most of his $2.5 million estate to his partner Kyle Stuart Jackson. The only problem was that William had never met Kyle in person. And after William's death, Kyle could not be found.

CASE: Anastasia Pates v Diane Craig and The Public Trustee Estate of the Late Joyce Jean Cole [1995] NSWSC 87This case involves a dispute over the last will of the late Joyce Jean Cole and the accusations that Joyce did not have the capacity to make her 1993 will, that she didn’t know or approve of the contents of the will, and that it was executed under undue influence and fraud. Joyce met Reginald Greenfield when she was in her 60s and they went on to have a relationship for about 10 years. Unfortunately, in 1990 Reginald suffered a stroke and soon after was moved to a nursing home. After that, Joyce's neighbours and friends noticed a marked decline in Joyce's mental health. Around Christmas 1992, Joyce met Anastasia Pates and within 3 months Joyce changed her Will to leave her entire estate to Anastasia. Reginald's daughter litigated on his behalf, seeking to have the 1993 Will overturned in favour of Joyce's 1989 Will which had left everything to Reginald.

CASE: In the estate of Giuseppe Pellegrino (deceased) [2025] ACTSC 421So many questions in this case.Can you disclaim an inheritance left to you in a Will? Yes. Does the disclaimer have to be in writing? No. If you refuse to respond to letters and email, and send back the inheritance cheque, does that constitute disclaiming your inheritance? In this case, yes. If a person disclaims their inheritance, who does their share of the estate go to? ... that's a little tricky. Listen to the episode to find out.

CASE: Radecki & Fairbairn [2020] FamCAFC 307; Fairbairn & Radecki [2020] FCCA 1556Fairbairn and Radecki started a relationship when both were in their 50s, had already acquired their own assets, and had their own children. A core element of their relationship was their agreement to always keep their finances separate. However, when Fairbairn lost capacity and moved into a nursing home, Radecki refused to move out of her house. The house was Fairbairn's only assets and only if it was sold would she be able to pay the aged care accommodation bond. Radecki, on the other hand, owned three properties in his own right. Yet despite that, he continued to live rent free in Fairbairn's house while what little savings she had were eaten away by aged care fees. The NSW Trustee & Guardian, acting as Fairbairn's financial manager, started family law proceedings claiming that the relationship with Fairbairn and Radecki had ended.But had it???

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 1078In 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 345WARNING: Disturbing content; child abuseParents 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.