TB Law - Ticli Blaxland Lawyers & Conveyancing

TB Law - Ticli Blaxland Lawyers & Conveyancing Coffs Harbour's longest standing law firm; serving our community for over 80 years. We also understand the anxiety that can be associated with legal matters.

Ticli Blaxland Lawyers has a tradition of excellence and success in the provision of legal services to the local area since 1940. We are committed to providing a down-to-earth, compassionate approach to problems whilst giving clear and objective advice in a wide range of areas including Wills and Deceased Estates, Conveyancing and Property Law, Business Sales, Leasing and Commercial Law. We provid

e cost-effective, practical legal services in an efficient and timely manner. Contact us to arrange a consultation with one of our experienced solicitors.

Family Law, Capacity and DeathHarry and Wendy have been married for 10 years.When the relationship deteriorates, Wendy m...
16/04/2026

Family Law, Capacity and Death

Harry and Wendy have been married for 10 years.

When the relationship deteriorates, Wendy moves out of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

There are no children to the relationship.

Harry and Wendy continue to reside separately for 10 years, before Harry is diagnosed with Alzheimer’s Disease.
He appoints his son Peter, from a previous relationship, to manage his financial affairs under a power of attorney.

Peter commences property proceedings under the Family Law Act against Wendy and files an Application for Divorce on Harry’s behalf as his “litigation guardian”.

Peter seeks orders that the matrimonial home be sold, and that Harry receive the whole of the proceeds of sale.

Wendy claims that although they did not reside continuously under the same roof, their relationship continued. She says they often stayed over at each other’s residences and cites holidays that were taken together after she moved out.

Centrelink records do not support Wendy’s claims.

The Court has difficulty in its attempts to “retrospectively piece together the history of the parties”, given Harry’s worsening condition and Wendy’s “contradictory” evidence, with the Court finding her to be an “unimpressive witness”.

Nonetheless, the Court considers the parties’ respective financial and non-financial contributions, the contributions made by each party as homemaker and parent, the effect any family violence has had on a party’s ability to make contributions, and the effect of any proposed order upon the earning capacity of either party.

The Court notes that when Harry retired, shortly before meeting Wendy, he owned the matrimonial home solely and had a substantial superannuation fund. Wendy brought $50,000 into the relationship and did not obtain paid employment during the relationship, stating that she attended to domestic duties and Harry’s ongoing care.

The Court reserves its decision.

Unfortunately, Harry passes away, before the decision is delivered.

Ultimately, the Court rules that Harry’s estate is entitled to receive 77.5% of the property pool and Wendy is to receive 22.5%, equating to around $130,000.

The parties pay their own legal costs.

Email Manny Wood, Principal Solicitor and Accredited Specialist in Wills and Estates at TB Law at [email protected] or call him on (02) 66 487 487. This fictional column is not legal advice.

Enough is a FeastRuth has five children. She makes a will leaving the whole of her estate to all of her children equally...
09/04/2026

Enough is a Feast

Ruth has five children. She makes a will leaving the whole of her estate to all of her children equally.

When Ruth passes away, her estate is valued at $1.5 million.

Ruth’s youngest son, Roger, makes a family provision claim against the estate, seeking a right to reside in Ruth’s home for life and in the alternative, the sum of $900,000. The executor, Ruth’s eldest child is named as the defendant.

The evidence indicates that Roger moved in with Ruth, 15 years before she passed away. She made her last will 10 years before she passed.

The Judge is satisfied that Ruth’s will reflected her intentions and that she intended for her estate to be distributed equally between her children up until the day she passed. The Judge notes that Roger did not pay rent for 5 years and only provided occasional support to his mother. Although Roger adduced evidence that he had several health concerns, the Judge was not satisfied that he was suffering from a “disability”. The Judge accepts that Roger had no significant assets at the age of 50 years.

Nonetheless, the trial judge decides that in the circumstances, including the fact that her other children were relatively financially comfortable, Ruth had a moral obligation to make greater provision for Roger and rules that he is to receive $600,000 out of the estate, plus legal costs. This award is made up of the sum of $300,000 to purchase a one bedroom unit and $300,000 to meet “contingencies”. The rest of the estate is to be divided equally among Ruth’s other children.

Roger is not satisfied with the decision and files an appeal.

The matter is reheard before three Supreme Court Judges and one month later, their decision is handed down. The Court of Appeal agrees with the trial Judge and declines to increase Roger’s provision.

As a result, Roger is ordered to pay the legal costs of the Appeal, effectively reducing his provision, in terms of the net result, from $600,000 to $450,000.

Email Manny Wood, Principal Solicitor and Accredited Specialist in Wills and Estates at TB Law at [email protected] or call him on (02) 66 487 487.

This fictional column is not legal advice.

Carrot Patch ChaosFollowing an honourable career as the Easter Bunny, Sir Eggward Cottontail decided it was time to hang...
01/04/2026

Carrot Patch Chaos

Following an honourable career as the Easter Bunny, Sir Eggward Cottontail decided it was time to hang up his tail and retire to the quaint town of Cadbury Cove. Eggward purchased a lovely cottage in Carrot Meadows Estate.

An easement over a garden on his neighbour, Mrs Henrietta Hopsworth’s property, grants Eggward the right to use half the garden for “garden use”. Mrs Hopsworth, a notoriously particular resident, is well known for her award-winning heirloom carrots.

Eggward, eager to make friends, decided to host a housewarming on Easter Sunday, inviting the residents of Cadbury Cove. He planned an elaborate garden party along with an easter egg hunt, carrot canapés and a game of pin the tail on the bunny.

Mrs Hopsworth took grave exception to the festivities and refused to attend. Upon seeing a flurry of residents in “outrageous” costumes trampling through her prized carrot patch in pursuit of chocolate eggs, Mrs Hopsworth donned her carrot hat and furiously made her way to Eggward’s, proclaiming the easement over the garden permitted “garden use” only, not a full-scale invasion of her carrot patch and demanded the festivities cease.

Eggward argued that an easter egg hunt constituted “garden use” as it involved the placement and retrieval of items from the garden, although conceded he should not have placed eggs on her side.

The dispute escalated and Mrs Hopsworth commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court seeking an order that the easement be ruled invalid because it interfered with her owner’s rights.

Judge Hatchington held that the easement was valid and while the s88B instrument permitted “garden use” allowing the dominant tenement the right to use half the garden for “gardening”, it did not extend to “general recreational use” and certainly didn’t include large unruly gatherings.

His Honour also observed that Eggward’s party was excessive and unreasonably interfered with Mrs Hopsworth’s rights as the servient tenement, further remarking, they should resolve future disputes over tea and hot cross buns.

Thank you to Rhiannon Beck, for her assistance with this column.

Email Manny Wood, Principal Solicitor and Accredited Specialist in Wills and Estates at TB Law at [email protected] or call on (02) 66 487 487. This fictional column is not legal advice.

Toxic love, testamentary obligationWilliam died at 48 without a will, leaving an estate valued at $360,000. His assets i...
26/03/2026

Toxic love, testamentary obligation

William died at 48 without a will, leaving an estate valued at $360,000. His assets included a small rural property, a motor vehicle and minimal cash. Under intestacy rules, the estate passed to his sister, Amelia, with whom he had limited contact.

William had, however, been in a long but volatile relationship with Kristina for almost a decade. Their relationship was marked by periods of living together, frequent conflict, police involvement and repeated separations. Kristina often left the home with nowhere stable to go, sometimes staying in motels, on couches or in her car before returning.

Despite the instability, there were moments of connection. William proposed to Kristina, gave her jewellery and told her the property was “her home”. When living together, she contributed by cooking, cleaning and maintaining the home while relying on him for accommodation.

The relationship ultimately ended several months before William’s passing. Both were subject to apprehended violence orders and were living separately at the time he died. Kristina did not learn of his death until several weeks later.

Following his death, Kristina brought a family provision claim. Although she was not entitled under intestacy, as no de facto relationship existed at the time of William’s death, she argued that she had been partly dependent on William for many years, particularly for housing and had been the person closest to him over the last decade.

She also relied on her financial hardship, lack of assets and dependence on Centrelink.

Amelia opposed the claim, arguing the relationship had ended and was characterised by what she described as very ‘toxic behaviour’. She submitted that William had no obligation to Kristina, given they were no longer together at the time of his death.

The Court accepted that the relationship was troubled but enduring. It found that Kristina had been partly dependent on William and was someone who would naturally be expected to receive testamentary provision.

Her financial need was significant, while Amelia’s circumstances were comparatively secure.

The Court awarded Kristina the entirety of the estate, subject to costs, effectively displacing William’s sister.

Thank you to Ellysha Laklem for her assistance with this column.

Email Manny Wood, Principal Solicitor and Accredited Specialist in Wills and Estates at TB Law at [email protected] or call him on (02) 66 487 487.

This fictional column is not legal advice.

Banking on Mum: A gift or undue influence?Evelyn died at the age of 89, leaving an estate valued at approximately $3 mil...
19/03/2026

Banking on Mum: A gift or undue influence?

Evelyn died at the age of 89, leaving an estate valued at approximately $3 million. Her will divides the estate equally between her four adult children.

In the final months of her life, however, Evelyn transferred $180,000 to one of her children, Amanda. At the time, Evelyn was frail and relied heavily on Amanda, who lived nearby and had assumed responsibility for appointments, banking matters and daily tasks. Evelyn’s three other children lived further away and visited less frequently.

Shortly after Evelyn’s death, Amanda commenced proceedings seeking further provision from the estate. Although she stood to receive one-quarter of the residuary estate, she argued this was inadequate given her circumstances. Amanda relied on limited savings, insecure housing and modest employment prospects. She also described the support she had provided to her mother over many years, stating her involvement had been greater than that of her siblings.

The executor of the estate, Amanda’s older brother, Matthew, opposed the claim and filed a cross-claim seeking repayment of the $180,000.

Matthew alleged the payment was not a simple gift but arose from undue influence and unconscionable conduct. The evidence suggested the transfer occurred shortly after Amanda accompanied Evelyn to the bank, not long before Evelyn’s health deteriorated significantly.

Matthew argued that Amanda had raised her financial difficulties with their mother and that the payment occurred when Evelyn felt pressure to assist.

Amanda denied wrongdoing and maintained the transfer was voluntary and motivated by love and gratitude.

After considering the evidence, the Court upheld the executor’s cross-claim, finding the transfer occurred when Evelyn was vulnerable and dependent on Amanda and amounted to undue influence and unconscionable conduct. The Court ordered the $180,000 repaid to the estate with interest.

On the family provision claim, the Court accepted Amanda was eligible to apply and that her financial circumstances warranted consideration. However, it determined that no additional provision beyond recovery of the $180,000 was appropriate, leaving Amanda with the same share she would receive under the will.

Thank you to Ellysha Laklem for her assistance with this column.

Email Manny Wood, Principal Solicitor and Accredited Specialist in Wills and Estates at TB Law at [email protected] or call him on (02) 66 487 487.

This fictional column is not legal advice.

Migration Law: Love without romance Anita, a foreign citizen, has been living in Australia on a temporary visa and has b...
12/03/2026

Migration Law: Love without romance

Anita, a foreign citizen, has been living in Australia on a temporary visa and has been unsuccessful in obtaining a long-term visa.

Anita meets an elderly Australian widower while volunteering at a neighbourhood community centre.

Patrick is 85 years old and has lived alone since his wife died six years earlier. Anita initially visits regularly and helps with everyday tasks such as cooking, organising medication and accompanying him to medical appointments. Over time, Anita moves into Patrick’s home and the two begin living together.

After two years, Anita applies for a partner visa on the basis that she is Patrick’s de facto partner. Patrick supports the application and provides a statutory declaration confirming they share a household and intend to remain together long term.

During the visa assessment process, a departmental officer interviews Anita and Patrick separately. Some answers differ. Anita explains that she cares deeply for Patrick but finds it difficult to describe romantic feelings. The officer forms the view that Anita may be acting more as a carer than a genuine partner.

The application is refused on the basis that the Department is not satisfied that Anita and Patrick are in a genuine de facto relationship, deciding their relationship to involve Anita providing care and companionship, rather than romantic love.

Anita seeks review before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Tribunal concludes the arrangement resembles an agreement to meet each other’s needs rather than a genuine relationship.

Anita seeks judicial review in the Federal Court.

The Court observes that the Migration Act requires decision-makers to consider whether the parties have a mutual commitment to a shared life together in light of all the circumstances. While love or affection may be relevant, the absence of romantic love does not necessarily prevent a genuine de facto relationship from existing.

The Court finds the Tribunal erred by treating the lack of romantic love as determinative of whether a genuine de facto relationship existed.

Thank you to Ellysha Laklem for her assistance with this column.

Email Manny Wood, Principal Solicitor and Accredited Specialist in Wills and Estates at TB Law at [email protected] or call him on (02) 66 487 487.

This fictional column is not legal advice.

Did He Have Capacity?Michael has been suffering from chronic schizophrenia since the 1980s and his affairs are under the...
05/03/2026

Did He Have Capacity?

Michael has been suffering from chronic schizophrenia since the 1980s and his affairs are under the control of the Trustee and Guardian. When he passes away, his cousins stand to receive the whole of his estate, on the basis that they understand that Michael did not leave a will and that his estate would be distributed under the laws of “intestacy”.

However, it comes to light, that Michael made a Will 20 years before he passed, leaving the whole of his estate to “the Socialist party”.

Michael’s cousins dispute the validity of the will, on the belief that he lacked the mental capacity at the time the will was made.

Michael’s estate is valued at $2.5 million.

The matter proceeds to a hearing in Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The evidence indicates that Michael consulted a solicitor regarding the making of his will, and although the solicitor did not retain the file, he recalls Michael stating that “I have no family, the Socialist party is my family. There is no one else”.

The will appoints an employee of the Socialist party as Michael’s executor, although at the time of the hearing, the employee’s employment had ceased.

The solicitor states that Michael spoke in a lucid manner, and that there was no reason to suspect that his affairs were under the control of the Trustee and Guardian.

When Michael returns to sign his will, he provides his solicitor with a lengthy written statement, explaining his motivations behind the making of his will. The statement contains profanity and is difficult to follow.

Ten years after making the will, Michael writes a letter to the Protective Commissioner, asking for his will to be destroyed, stating that the solicitor was a “money grabber” and that he wants “nothing further to do with him”.

Ultimately, the Court decides that Michael’s letter to the Commissioner did not constitute a valid revocation of his will and on the basis that it was validly executed and without sufficient evidence as to Michael’s alleged incapacity at the time, declares the will valid.

Email Manny Wood, Principal Solicitor and Accredited Specialist in Wills and Estates at TB Law at [email protected] or call him on (02) 66 487 487. This fictional column is not legal advice.

Court considers quirky conditions Terry makes a will, leaving his large estate to his six children subject to some very ...
26/02/2026

Court considers quirky conditions

Terry makes a will, leaving his large estate to his six children subject to some very unusual conditions.

His first child only receives his inheritance if she is baptised.

His second child only receives her inheritance if she abstains from alcohol consumption for twelve months.

His third child only receives his inheritance if he obtains employment as a solicitor.

His fourth child only receives her inheritance if he maintains his place of residence in his hometown.

His fifth child only receives his inheritance if he completes a university degree and his sixth child only receives her inheritance if she remains unmarried.

Terry’s children are not happy with the restrictions placed on their inheritance and commence action in the Supreme Court, seeking orders that the conditions be declared void.

The Court notes that there was evidence that Terry had carefully considered the terms of his will and that he had a logical basis for the imposition of the conditions as they relate to each particular child.

The Court considers whether a dead person should use their will as a “skeleton hand” to guide a child’s ideas and wishes or whether it is to the child to simply “make their choice” as to whether they think more of ‘their current habits” than their inheritance.

Ultimately, the Court rules as follows.

The first child’s conditions are ruled to be “against public policy” because they hamper religious freedom.

The second child’s conditions were upheld, and she soon attended her first AA meeting.

The third child lasted one week at a law firm before being fired. He receives his inheritance.

The fourth child faced a difficult choice, with the residence condition being declared valid.

The fifth child’s inheritance was ordered to be retained in trust until graduation day.

The sixth child receives her inheritance immediately because the condition was an “unreasonable restraint of marriage”.

Email Manny Wood, Principal Solicitor and Accredited Specialist in Wills and Estates at TB Law at [email protected] or call him on (02) 66 487 487. This fictional column is not legal advice.

Probe into Late-Life TransfersAlan makes a will, leaving the whole of his estate to his three daughters.However, shortly...
19/02/2026

Probe into Late-Life Transfers

Alan makes a will, leaving the whole of his estate to his three daughters.

However, shortly before he passes away, he makes a new will, leaving the whole of his estate to his neighbour, Henry.

When Alan passes away, his daughters seek legal advice and soon commence proceedings.

Henry says that he had formed a relationship with Alan, akin to the relationship of a father and son. He says that Alan informed him that he had no ongoing relationship with his daughters.

It is revealed that Alan had sold his home to Henry for $700,000. Alan’s daughters say the property was worth in excess of $1 million.

Henry says that Alan could not afford to continue to reside in his home and after suffering a fall, decided to sell the property to him.

Evidence is adduced, to the effect that at the time of the sale of his property, Alan was an elderly and frail man with some dementia and heart disease. It was unclear whether he received sufficient legal and financial advice regarding the sale of the property.

Following the sale of the property, Alan moved in with Henry and Alan’s personal effects were sold.

Further evidence indicates that substantial sums were withdrawn from Alan’s bank accounts following the sale of property. Henry says the funds were for Alan’s benefit. At the time of the hearing,
Alan’s bank account had only small balances remaining.

Alan’s daughters claim that he had grown dependent upon Henry and was vulnerable to exploitation. They say that the sale of Alan’s property to Henry should be set aside.

In terms of case management, given that Alan’s estate had been almost entirely dissipated prior to his death, the appointment of an independent administrator of his estate was not financially viable and the Court decides that it is appropriate to appoint one of his daughters in this role.

The Court approves the lodgement of the caveat over Alan’s home and adjourns the matter, pending further investigations regarding financial transactions both before and after Alan’s death.

Email Manny Wood, Principal Solicitor and Accredited Specialist in Wills and Estates at TB Law at [email protected] or call him on (02) 66 487 487. This fictional column is not legal advice.

Nibling Rivalry Ruth never married and never had any children.When Ruth passes away, she leaves an estate worth $1.5 mil...
12/02/2026

Nibling Rivalry

Ruth never married and never had any children.

When Ruth passes away, she leaves an estate worth $1.5 million. This includes a substantial superannuation fund, which was paid to her estate.

Ruth’s last will appoints her only surviving sibling, Gary, as her executor, who also receives a 50% share of the estate, after the payment of the estate’s liabilities and expenses. The remaining 50% share of the estate is to be distributed amongst four of Ruth’s nieces and nephews (niblings), being the children of Ruth’s late sister.

However, Gary’s daughter, Alice, receives nothing under the will and makes a claim against her aunt’s estate, alleging that she was a “dependent member of a household of which the deceased was a member”.

The matter is referred to mediation and the parties are ultimately agreeable to Alice receiving a lump sum of $400,000, inclusive of her legal costs, payable from the estate.

Unfortunately, the parties cannot agree to the proportions in which they should bear the burden of the payment and this aspect of the matter proceeds to determination in the Supreme Court.

The Court carefully assesses the financial circumstances of all of the beneficiaries named in the will and their relative future needs, to determine how each of them should bear the burden of the provision to be made for Alice. The determination involves the exercise of a discretion to be exercised “according to the rules of reason and justice with due regard to the whole of the surrounding circumstances”.

The process is also described by the Court as a “broad discretion in terms of evaluative decision-making in relation to all material facts and circumstances”.

The learned Judge decides on a “just and equitable basis” that Gary should bear 70% of the payment from his entitlement in the estate and that the niblings bear much smaller percentages ranging between 10%, 7% and 5%.

The effect of the judgement is that Alice receives more than twice that of the other niblings.

Email Manny Wood, Principal Solicitor and Accredited Specialist in Wills and Estates at TB Law at [email protected] or call him on (02) 66 487 487. This fictional column is not legal advice.

Elder Law: A cautionary taleKaren is concerned that her elderly mother, Mary is lacking the ability to manage her affair...
05/02/2026

Elder Law: A cautionary tale

Karen is concerned that her elderly mother, Mary is lacking the ability to manage her affairs.

Karen makes an appointment with a solicitor, with a view to drafting a Power of Attorney and an Appointment of Enduring Guardian for Mary. Karen is present at the appointment with the solicitor and she does most of the talking.

The solicitor obtains instructions to prepare the documents, appointing Karen and her sister, Tanya, jointly and severally.

Mary executes the documents and Karen signs the acceptance, in the presence of the solicitor.

Karen decides that Mary should sell her home and pay Karen $300,000 for the right to stay with her for life. Unfortunately, they do not enter into a formal Granny Flat Agreement.

Contracts for the sale of Mary’s home are exchanged and Karen signs the contract on Mary’s behalf under the Power of Attorney. Karen signs an irrevocable authority for the $300,000 to be paid into her own bank account.

When Tanya hears of the developments, she makes further enquiries.

Tanya discovers that because there is no written Granny Flat Agreement, Mary stands to lose her Centrelink pension.

Tanya makes an application to the Guardianship Division of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT), seeking a review of the Power of Attorney and seeking orders appointing her as Mary’s sole financial manager.

The evidence before NCAT, indicate that there were no medical reports obtained regarding Mary’s capacity to execute the Power of Attorney and concerns are raised that Mary did not receive the proper advice from the solicitor due to the presence of Karen, during the process.

Whilst she is successful in her application, Tanya discovers that NCAT does not have the power to prevent the sale of Mary’s home and that it is the Supreme Court of NSW that holds the jurisdictional power.

Karen and Mary’s relationship sours as a result of the NCAT application and Tanya looks into Aged Care accommodation options for Mary. Tanya discovers that if the sale proceeds, Mary could also face increased Aged Care fees.

Tanya, as Mary’s tutor, sues Karen in the Supreme Court.

Email Manny Wood, Principal Solicitor and Accredited Specialist in Wills and Estates at TB Law at [email protected] or call him on (02) 66 487 487. This fictional column is not legal advice.

Address

45 Grafton Street
Coffs Harbour, NSW
2450

Opening Hours

Monday 8:30am - 5pm
Tuesday 8:30am - 5pm
Wednesday 8:30am - 5pm
Thursday 8:30am - 5pm
Friday 8:30am - 5pm

Telephone

+61266487487

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when TB Law - Ticli Blaxland Lawyers & Conveyancing posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Practice

Send a message to TB Law - Ticli Blaxland Lawyers & Conveyancing:

Shortcuts

Share

Category