Redlich v Redlic

03 March 2012 By Lawyers Weekly

Redlich v RedlichThe incestuousness of the law can sometimes throw up some provoking scenarios such as one last month in the Supreme Court of Victoria.High profile entertainment firm Holding…

Redlich v Redlich

The incestuousness of the law can sometimes throw up some provoking scenarios such as one last month in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

High profile entertainment firm Holding Redlich was hauled before the bench to argue a waiver of legal professional privilege case. And staring down at them from up high, waiting to pass judgement, was none other than Justice Robert Redlich.


So why didn’t anyone hear more about this? Surely some sort of mis- carriage of justice could be made out here?

Well, unfortunately this is one of those disappointing occasions where there is actually less to the situation than meets the eye. His Honour and namesake Peter Redlich, chairman of the mid-tier firm, are not — and never have been — related, genetically or professionally.

Death becomes them

An appropriately named party, Death, was named in the Supreme Court of NSW recently as the bench considered a case pertaining to wills and codicils.

Corrs for tears

Lawyers Weekly Discover

Some might say former Corrs Chambers Westgarth partner James O’Callaghan was one of the unlucky ones …

Many would well remember that before he was unceremoniously struck from the roll a couple of years back, Brisbane-based O’Callaghan success-fully swindled $804,857.17 out of clients.

In fact, he padded his timesheets so much between 1994 and 2000 that at one stage pillow makers Tontine were said to be interested in sponsoring him.

Last week O’Callaghan was dealt anything but a soft landing in Brisbane’s District Court. He reportedly cried like a baby during sentencing and it’s unlikely that the seven-year jail term would have put a stop to the gush.

The court heard that the fraud was conducted to support day-to-day — as opposed to decade-to-decade — living expenses.

Corrs reimbursed the 16 victims long ago.

Continuing on with the mortality theme, we remain in the Supreme Court to take a look at a will, the executor of which obviously lays great claim to being the lifeblood of racial sensitivity.

And just to confirm what a tolerant society it is in which we live, the court did the right thing by determining the deceased’s responsible wishes were to be carried out to the letter.

We hope you can all learn a thing or two from Kay v South Eastern Sydney Area Health Service [2003] NSWSC 292 and in doing so make the world a better place.

“I appoint Stephen Kay ... to be Executor and Trustee of this my Will & I expect him to carry out my orders without any changes and no-one can contest it.

I give Royal North Shore Hospital $10,000 for the Liver Department ... I give The Children's Hospital at Randwick $10,000 for treatment of White (and white is underlined twice) babies. I give the Blind Dogs $10,000 for dog pets for the elderly.

I give the Pink Ladies at Ryde Hospital $5,000 & my finished craft to sell in their shop ... My brother, his wife or any of their descendants are not (not is underlined twice) to get anything out of the house or one cent of any money. If Stephen Kay wants to sell the house he must sell it to a young white (white is underlined twice) Australian couple for a reasonable price & not sell at auction or to a developer.

Nothing in the house is to be sold. It is to be given to anyone who needs it or to charity, even Rotary for their garage sale but not the Smith Family or St Vincent de Paul. What no-one wants is to go to the tip. So goodbye to anyone who is interested.”

Redlich v Redlic
Intro image
lawyersweekly logo