White J
Court or Tribunal: Supreme Court of Queensland
Catchwords: Assisted Reproduction, In Vitro Fertilisation, Parens Patriae, Posthumous Sperm Donation, Sperm Donation, Succession
Judges: Brown J
Background: A Queensland woman applied to the Qld Supreme Court in Brisbane for the right to use her dead boyfriend’s sperm to have a baby. Ayla Cresswell’s partner Joshua Davies died suddenly in August 2016, and within hours the court granted permission for his sperm to be harvested. Ms Cresswell sought approval from the court to use the sperm, which is being held at an IVF clinic.
[Legal Issue]The court decided the sperm was capable of being deemed “property” and that Ms Cresswell was entitled to permanent possession of it.
Ms McMillan said while the resulting child would not have the benefit of a father, there was support from a paternal and maternal grandfather.
[Court Orders]The applicant is entitled to possession and use of the spermatozoa to facilitate pregnancy and the Queensland Fertility Group (QFG) is to transfer directly the spermatozoa to Women’s Health Only (WHO) on the applicant’s direction.
Catchwords: Assisted Reproduction, In Vitro Fertilisation, Parens Patriae, Posthumous Sperm Donation, Sperm Donation, Succession
Judges: Brown J
Background: A Queensland woman applied to the Qld Supreme Court in Brisbane for the right to use her dead boyfriend’s sperm to have a baby. Ayla Cresswell’s partner Joshua Davies died suddenly in August 2016, and within hours the court granted permission for his sperm to be harvested. Ms Cresswell sought approval from the court to use the sperm, which is being held at an IVF clinic.
[Legal Issue]The court decided the sperm was capable of being deemed “property” and that Ms Cresswell was entitled to permanent possession of it.
Ms McMillan said while the resulting child would not have the benefit of a father, there was support from a paternal and maternal grandfather.
[Court Orders]The applicant is entitled to possession and use of the spermatozoa to facilitate pregnancy and the Queensland Fertility Group (QFG) is to transfer directly the spermatozoa to Women’s Health Only (WHO) on the applicant’s direction.
Court or Tribunal: Supreme Court of Queensland
Catchwords: Estate Planning, Estoppel by Conduct, Family Provision, Family Provision, Family Trust, Family Trust, High Value Estates, Large Estate, Requirement of Adequate Maintenance, Succession, Succession, Wills
Judges: Martin J
Background: Steven Darveniza, the eldest son of Bojan Darveniza, took his father’s widow to the Supreme Court to get a share of the estate, claiming he had worked for his father for many years. Bojan Darveniza died in 2010, aged 78, leaving most of his estate to his second wife, Xiao Hong Darveniza, now known as Jane, who was 30 years younger than him. Multi-millionaire Bojan Darveniza was a hardworking, astute investor with a talent for turning run-down properties into rental goldmines, amassing a fortune. But to his older children, Bojan was a tyrant who ruled them with an iron rod, making them work hard in the family business after school and on weekends. Bojan had eight children – Steven and Tania with first wife Lindsay; Natasha, Jonathon and Andrea with his ex-housekeeper de fact
[Legal Issue]This case involves an examination of the familial and financial relationships of the Darveniza family. Steven Darveniza has brought two matters before the Court. In the first he seeks an order for provision (pursuant to s 41 of the Succession Act 1981) from the estate of his deceased father, Bojan Darveniza (“the provision claim”). In the second, he seeks declarations about, and transfers of interests in, a number of family companies (“the trust claim”). He also seeks damages pursuant to s 82 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and consequential orders (“the company claim”).
[Court Orders]Bojan’s personal estate was worth $40 million at the time of his death, but the net value was now between $26 and $28 million, the court heard.
Justice Martin said Steven deserved better provision from his father’s very large estate because he had worked long and hard for Bojan, contributing to the growth of his property interests.
Two reasons for his father not providing for him in his will were misconceived or based on a misunderstanding, the judge said.
He also accepted Steven co
Catchwords: Estate Planning, Estoppel by Conduct, Family Provision, Family Provision, Family Trust, Family Trust, High Value Estates, Large Estate, Requirement of Adequate Maintenance, Succession, Succession, Wills
Judges: Martin J
Background: Steven Darveniza, the eldest son of Bojan Darveniza, took his father’s widow to the Supreme Court to get a share of the estate, claiming he had worked for his father for many years. Bojan Darveniza died in 2010, aged 78, leaving most of his estate to his second wife, Xiao Hong Darveniza, now known as Jane, who was 30 years younger than him. Multi-millionaire Bojan Darveniza was a hardworking, astute investor with a talent for turning run-down properties into rental goldmines, amassing a fortune. But to his older children, Bojan was a tyrant who ruled them with an iron rod, making them work hard in the family business after school and on weekends. Bojan had eight children – Steven and Tania with first wife Lindsay; Natasha, Jonathon and Andrea with his ex-housekeeper de fact
[Legal Issue]This case involves an examination of the familial and financial relationships of the Darveniza family. Steven Darveniza has brought two matters before the Court. In the first he seeks an order for provision (pursuant to s 41 of the Succession Act 1981) from the estate of his deceased father, Bojan Darveniza (“the provision claim”). In the second, he seeks declarations about, and transfers of interests in, a number of family companies (“the trust claim”). He also seeks damages pursuant to s 82 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and consequential orders (“the company claim”).
[Court Orders]Bojan’s personal estate was worth $40 million at the time of his death, but the net value was now between $26 and $28 million, the court heard.
Justice Martin said Steven deserved better provision from his father’s very large estate because he had worked long and hard for Bojan, contributing to the growth of his property interests.
Two reasons for his father not providing for him in his will were misconceived or based on a misunderstanding, the judge said.
He also accepted Steven co
Court or Tribunal: Supreme Court of NSW
Catchwords: Posthumous Sperm Donation, Rights of Executors and Administrators, Sperm Donation, Succession
Judges: R A Hulme J
Background: What right does a woman have to take sperm from the body of her deceased partner so that she may conceive a child? Ms Jocelyn Edwards seeks a declaration that she, as the administrator of the estate of her late husband, Mr Mark Edwards, is entitled to possession of sperm that was extracted from his body shortly after his death. Although there is no direct evidence, the clear and only inference is that she desires to have a child with the aid of assisted reproductive treatment.
[Legal Issue]Ms Edwards argued that, as the administrator of her late husband's estate in relation to the disposal of his body, she has a right to possession of any part thereof and no other party has a superior right.
The Attorney General however argued that there is a right of property, but the right of an executor or administrator to possession of the deceased's body is limited to fulfilling the duty to ensure prompt and decent burial or cremation.
[Court Orders]The Court made the order that Ms Jocelyn Edwards is entitled to possession of the sperm recovered from the body of her late husband, Mr Mark Edwards.
Catchwords: Posthumous Sperm Donation, Rights of Executors and Administrators, Sperm Donation, Succession
Judges: R A Hulme J
Background: What right does a woman have to take sperm from the body of her deceased partner so that she may conceive a child? Ms Jocelyn Edwards seeks a declaration that she, as the administrator of the estate of her late husband, Mr Mark Edwards, is entitled to possession of sperm that was extracted from his body shortly after his death. Although there is no direct evidence, the clear and only inference is that she desires to have a child with the aid of assisted reproductive treatment.
[Legal Issue]Ms Edwards argued that, as the administrator of her late husband's estate in relation to the disposal of his body, she has a right to possession of any part thereof and no other party has a superior right.
The Attorney General however argued that there is a right of property, but the right of an executor or administrator to possession of the deceased's body is limited to fulfilling the duty to ensure prompt and decent burial or cremation.
[Court Orders]The Court made the order that Ms Jocelyn Edwards is entitled to possession of the sperm recovered from the body of her late husband, Mr Mark Edwards.