Hancock Alldis Roskov Lawyers & Notaries Public

17/12/2025

HAR Law Christmas lunch

23/06/2025

19/12/2022

Christmas lunch

10/03/2021

Over 92 Years

11/11/2020

Judgment Just In:
The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal with costs brought by Ms Mangano, the executor of the estate of her deceased father, Mr Mangano. Ms Mangano asserted that Mr Mangano and his partner Ms Bullen obtained their interests in a property by fraud after they received their interests in the property from a deregistered company. She sought to set aside particular transfers. The Court held that fraud was not established, and that even if fraud could be shown, there were others problems which would prevent the appeal from succeeding.
Read the judgment here: https://bit.ly/2Uj6Tiy
Summary: https://bit.ly/3loiGbg

26/10/2020

Judgment Just In:
The Supreme Court has upheld in part a claim made against the estate of the late Barbara Murphy brought by Mr Moore and Ms Andreasen on the basis that the deceased had made promises to them if they looked after her as she aged. The Court found that the relevant promise was for the transfer of two properties in Louisa Road, Birchgrove; not for the entirety of the estate (valued at approximately $11 million), and ordered that the properties should be transferred to Mr Moore and Ms Andreasen.
Read the judgment here: https://bit.ly/35xzUMD
Summary: https://bit.ly/2J5EQRn

21/10/2020

Judgment Just In:
The Court of Appeal has partially allowed an appeal in relation to defamatory words spoken at the Annual General Meeting of a Go Kart club. Court held that the primary judge erred in applying the test for imputations that differ in substance when determining whether the language pleaded by the applicant different from what was actually said. Leave to appeal was refused in relation to damages because the primary judge did not err in contingently assessing damages, and to remit the matter for reconsideration of aggravated damages would be disproportionate to the amount potentially at stake.
Read the judgment here: https://bit.ly/34iliBw
Summary: https://bit.ly/3dKMNH1

21/10/2020

Judgment Just In:
The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal challenging an extended supervision order. The challenged included a ground that the trial judge was required to be satisfied that the applicant posed an unacceptable risk of committing another serious offence throughout the duration of the order. The Court held that s 5B of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 is a gateway provision, and says nothing about the conditions or period of any order which may be made in the court’s discretion.
Read the judgment here: https://bit.ly/2Hkcxhh
Summary: https://bit.ly/2IKt1jb

13/10/2020

Judgment Just In:
The Court of Appeal has dismissed an application for leave to appeal from a judgment of the District Court summarily dismissing Mr Massarani’s action for defamation. The Court refused an invitation to consider the question of proportionality discussed in Bleyer v Google Inc [2014] NSWSC 897 as the primary judge had made an orthodox ruling striking out parts of Mr Massarani’s pleading that failed to articulate elements of a reasonable claim. It was permissible in the circumstances for the primary judge to refuse leave to replead and consider the issue of proportionality in that context.
Read the judgment here: https://bit.ly/3lDFvr9
Summary: https://bit.ly/3jT97jH

01/10/2020

Judgment Just In:
The Supreme Court has sentenced Ms Wang, following a plea of guilty, to a an overall term of imprisonment of 25 years and 6 months, comprising an overall non-parole period of 19 years and an additional term of 6 years and 6 months for the fatal stabbing of Ms Shuyu Zhou on 17 June 2019.
Read the judgment here: https://bit.ly/3ijVEA3
Summary: https://bit.ly/36jdK2I

24/09/2020

Judgment Just In:
The Court of Appeal has unanimously allowed an appeal in relation to a loss of opportunity arising from the misleading or deceptive conduct of the respondent engineering firm. The Court held that there was an overwhelming inference that the design defect was a material cause of the lender taking over the development and that was sufficient to establish causation of loss. Furthermore, the Court held that the claimed loss of opportunity was, at the very least, foreseeable in a general way. The Court also dismissed a cross appeal, holding that the assessment of damages for loss of opportunity exhibited many characteristics of a discretionary judgment and, in any event, the evidence provided ample basis for the conclusion reached by the primary judge in relation to a 15% discount on the damages recoverable.
Read the judgment here: https://bit.ly/3kMAPin
Summary: https://bit.ly/2HsFSGg