Found Deceased Australia - Melissa Caddick, 49, Sydney, NSW, 12 Nov 2020 #7

[MsLilly]

The problem as I see it, is that the Grimleys do not have a written contract from MC - only a few emails. MC could have changed her mind after she sent the emails.

Like how she pocketed the $1m that her parents contributed to her towards the mortgage....she changed her mind on what she was going to do with the money!!

Also, didn’t Mr Gleeson comment that “...all the MC documents they had seen were all false”!

 

[Estelle]

Like how she pocketed the $1m that her parents contributed to her towards the mortgage....she changed her mind on what she was going to do with the money!!

Also, didn’t Mr Gleeson comment that “...all the MC documents they had seen were all false”!

Yes they are only emails. Not sure if you can write fake emails. But there did not seem to be any connection in the emails directly to the Edgecliff property.

Superficially, it all read OK but thinking about it now, it would not face up to legal scrutiny IMO.

 

[Sophist]

For how many years was this paid to MC?

Did her ex-husband pay it? Surely he was the one responsible - not the Government.

Is AK receiving the child support now?

Oh I thought MC was receiving $71,393 p/a from her ex the way I first read it
$40 p.m doesn’t sound like a usual amount…

 

[Estelle]

Oh I thought MC was receiving $71,393 p/a from her ex the way I first read it
$40 p.m doesn’t sound like a usual amount…

I think there is some confusion here.

Divorced women usually receive child support from their ex-husbands. I would predict that if the amount was $71,393 p/a (read it as a total from the government since OC was born at first).

$71,393 p/a from her ex sounds correct. This also sounds as if he was paying for the private school fees. So why did AG apply for money for the school fees? Double dipping? Did he get the money for the school fees in the end?

MC would have also received a small monthly sum from the government but I am not up to date with how much that is - $32 or $40?

 

[MsLilly]

The problem as I see it, is that the Grimleys do not have a written contract from MC - only a few emails. MC could have changed her mind after she sent the emails.

Like how she pocketed the $1m that her parents contributed to her towards the mortgage....she changed her mind on what she was going to do with the money!!

Also, didn’t Mr Gleeson comment that “...all the MC documents they had seen were all false”!

I think there is some confusion here.

Divorced women usually receive child support from their ex-husbands. I would predict that if the amount was $71,393 p/a (read it as a total from the government since OC was born at first).

$71,393 p/a from her ex sounds correct. This also sounds as if he was paying for the private school fees. So why did AG apply for money for the school fees? Double dipping? Did he get the money for the school fees in the end?

MC would have also received a small monthly sum from the government but I am not up to date with how much that is - $32 or $40?

well then the budget (AG Affidavit in December 2020) did not state any child support from the ex-husband ....only the $32....also requested school fees and school uniform costs....this was submitted in December when schools were on holiday..... sad to say the Court approved the unreasonable living allowance that was requested.....another example of the entitlement attitude the G’s display!

The funds that were used for the requested living allowance were........Investor funds!

 

[Estelle]

Like how she pocketed the $1m that her parents contributed to her towards the mortgage....she changed her mind on what she was going to do with the money!!

Also, didn’t Mr Gleeson comment that “...all the MC documents they had seen were all false”!

well then the budget (AG Affidavit in December 2020) did not state any child support from the ex-husband ....only the $32....also requested school fees and school uniform costs....this was submitted in December when schools were on holiday..... sad to say the Court approved the unreasonable living allowance that was requested.....another example of the entitlement attitude the G’s display!

The funds that were used for the requested living allowance were........Investor funds!

Has this been reported to ASIC? It should be and very soon.

 

[Redrunner]

Please note that this thread is about Melissa Caddick / Maliver not Grubisa.

Yes Ms Lilly it is, sorry to have brought it up. I meant no harm to the Maliver/MC investigation.

 

[Sophist]

Something I don’t understand ....if the G’s intention was to put the $1m on the mortgage for the Edgecliffe property - WHY didn’t they put the

It is an unusual arrangement, perhaps to do with superannuation/pension reasons although that couldn’t be above board or for taxation reasons for Melissa but none of that is clear either!

 

[Via Marple]

I guess the parents had to claim that they could not afford legal assistance by supplying bank statements and so on. I don't think you necessarily have to claim "abuse".

Free legal work for persons or groups who do not qualify for legal aid and cannot afford legal assistance;

Yes.. but the point is, how is it that the G's get chosen by BM for pro bono work?

Surely even elderly folks who need but can't afford legal assistance must be many, in Sydney alone. How does one apply?

 

[JLZ]

Yes.. but the point is, how is it that the G's get chosen by BM for pro bono work?

Surely even elderly folks who need but can't afford legal assistance must be many, in Sydney alone. How does one apply?

As far as I know--and it might be different these days and in large firms--one doesn't apply; it's offered. What the client can afford and expect in the way of costs is discussed at the start. Getting free or significantly cost-reduced service doesn't necessarily cut someone else out.

 

[Estelle]

A client is not usually offered pro bono legal costs unless the legal firm considers that they have a good chance of winning the case, I would have thought. Sometimes they could do it to gain publicity to attract other paying clients. Maybe they applied for legal aid and were refused and were then referred to this law firm.

 

[SouthAussie]

A client is not usually offered pro bono legal costs unless the legal firm considers that they have a good chance of winning the case, I would have thought. Sometimes they could do it to gain publicity to attract other paying clients. Maybe they applied for legal aid and were refused and were then referred to this law firm.

It could be as simple as someone in the firm personally knows the family, and is doing this for them as a supportive favour. That would be my best guess.

It is a massively big legal firm .... over 6,000 lawyers worldwide.



Baker McKenzie - Wikipedia

 

[Estelle]

It could be as simple as someone in the firm personally knows the family, and are doing this for them as a supportive favour. That would be my best guess.

It is a massively big legal firm .... over 6,000 lawyers worldwide.

Yes that is quite possible too.

 

[JLZ]

A client is not usually offered pro bono legal costs unless the legal firm considers that they have a good chance of winning the case, I would have thought. Sometimes they could do it to gain publicity to attract other paying clients. Maybe they applied for legal aid and were refused and were then referred to this law firm.

Pro bono might mean that the lawyer is accepting the Legal Aid fee as full payment, whereas usually he charges higher.

 

[SouthAussie]

Pro bono might mean that the lawyer is accepting the Legal Aid fee as full payment, whereas usually he charges higher.

While this could be the case, I remember us searching for Legal Aid guidelines in another case. Civil cases rarely fall under the Legal Aid banner. (I think it was to do with Spedding and his lawsuits, perhaps.)

 

[SouthAussie]

Oh I thought MC was receiving $71,393 p/a from her ex the way I first read it
$40 p.m doesn’t sound like a usual amount…

The child support amount of $71,393 was paid over the period Feb 2013 to Oct 2020. (page 15 of the affidavit)

Which equals 92 months at $776 per month.

Although it is highly probable it was not a static amount over the whole period, as child support can be adjusted by family court ruling.

I think it would have been difficult for Melissa to live where she lived, and live high on the hog, and receive more than half of her son's food and immediate expenses in child support.
With perhaps school fees and significant other expenses (eg: school uniforms) being paid 50/50 and not included in the child support that was paid.

https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/service...idavit-of-Bruce-Gleeson-sworn-12-May-2021.pdf

 

[JLZ]

While this could be the case, I remember us searching for Legal Aid guidelines in another case. Civil cases rarely fall under the Legal Aid banner. (I think it was to do with Spedding and his lawsuits, perhaps.)

Yes, I remember vaguely. This might be one of the exceptions. An elderly couple at risk of losing their home through no fault of their own, complicated legal issues. It's not like someone opting to sue for defamation, who could just drop the whole notion and accept that not everybody we meet is going to like us for bad reasons or good, and to be disliked is not a mortal wound.

 

[SouthAussie]

Yes, I remember vaguely. This might be one of the exceptions. An elderly couple at risk of losing their home through no fault of their own, complicated legal issues. It's not like someone opting to sue for defamation, who could just drop the whole notion and accept that not everybody we meet is going to like us for bad reasons or good, and to be disliked is not a mortal wound.

I looked a bit further and it is possible that the lawyers are working for an approved Legal Aid amount (although I don't think that would be considered Pro Bono work, because they are getting paid whatever Legal Aid will pay).

From Legal Aid: (BBM)
The civil law practice helps resolve legal issues that impact on people's everyday lives such as debts, unpaid fines, discrimination, tenancy issues, Centrelink disputes and more.
Civil law - Legal Aid NSW

 

[Sophist]

The child support amount of $71,393 was paid over the period Feb 2013 to Oct 2020. (page 15 of the affidavit)

Which equals 92 months at $776 per month.

Although it is highly probable it was not a static amount over the whole period, as child support can be adjusted by family court ruling.

I think it would have been difficult for Melissa to live where she lived, and live high on the hog, and receive more than half of her son's food and immediate expenses in child support.
With perhaps school fees and significant other expenses (eg: school uniforms) being paid 50/50 and not included in the child support that was paid.

https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/service...idavit-of-Bruce-Gleeson-sworn-12-May-2021.pdf

That sounds low for a parent that is a lawyer however it would depend on their combined income and how often each had custody as well as the costs agreed ie school etc…
Depending on who now has care and what share it is possible AK is paid child support if he is caring for her/their son

 

[SouthAussie]

That sounds low for a parent that is a lawyer however it would depend on their combined income and how often each had custody as well as the costs agreed ie school etc…
Depending on who now has care and what share it is possible AK is paid child support if he is caring for her/their son

I don't think it sounds low for this situation. (I see child support amounts of people I do payroll for, they are reasonably high earners.)
Mother living where she lived, driving what she drove, wearing what she wore, travelling where she travelled, all on 'her own' dollars.
Although we now know that the son was basically being financially cared for by his father and the investors.