Hatsatouris v Hatsatouris [2001] NSWSC 147

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Hatsatouris v Hatsatouris [2001] NSWSC 147 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity Division Probate List FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 118368/98 HEARING DATE(S) : 12/3/01, 13/3/01, 14/3/01 JUDGMENT DATE : 30 March 2001

PARTIES : Julia Hatsatouris v Angelo George Hatsatouris & Ors. The Estate of George Evangelos Hatsatouris JUDGMENT OF : Foster AJ at 1

COUNSEL : I.G. Harrison SC/W.G. Hodgekiss - Plaintiff P. Taylor SC/M. Scheib - Defendants SOLICITORS : Philip Parbury & Associates - Plaintiff Nicholas Pappas & Co. - Defendants CATCHWORDS : Probate in common form granted on Will and two Codicils in 1998 - Validity of Codicil - Codicil signed by deceased but not by attesting witnesses. LEGISLATION CITED : The Wills, Probate & Administration Act 1898 CASES CITED : The Estate of Masters (Deceased) (1994) 33 NSWLR 446 at 452 Permanent Trustee Co. Ltd v Milton (1995) 39 NSWLR 330. DECISION : Refer Paragraphs 71, 72 and 73.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION PROBATE LIST FOSTER AJ FRIDAY, 30 MARCH, 2001 Julia HATSATOURIS - v - Angelo George HATSATOURIS & ORS JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff Julia Hatsatouris ("Julia") is a daughter of the late George Evangelos Hatsatouris ("the deceased") who died on 4 March 1998, aged ninety-one. Probate in common form of his last Will dated 20 July 1995 and two Codicils dated respectively 7 February 1997 and 20 May 1997 was granted to the plaintiff and the four defendants, as Executors, on 7 July 1998 in the Probate Division of this Court. 2 The defendants, Angelo George Hatsatouris ("Angelo"), Maria Alexiou ("Maria"), Irene Antonas ("Irene") and Helen Purchell ("Helen") are also children of the deceased. Julia is the youngest of the children, having been born on 13 June 1952. The dates of birth of the defendants are: Angelo, 15 December 1942; Maria, 7 June 1944; Irene, 30 December 1946; and Helen, 8 August 1949. 3 By these proceedings, Julia asserts that the deceased, on 16 December 1997, made a valid Codicil to his Will, ("the Third Codicil"), by which he devised to her his "residential property known as 82 Onslow Street, Rose Bay" ("the Rose Bay home") for her own use and benefit absolutely. In asserting the validity of the Codicil Julia relies upon s 18A of the Wills, Probate and Administration Act 1898 ("the Act"). The validity of the Codicil is denied by the defendants. 4 In circumstances to which reference will be made later, the Third Codicil, which had been prepared for execution by the deceased's solicitor, Mr Davies of Taree, was signed by the deceased but not by the intended attesting witnesses. Accordingly there was a failure to comply with s 7 of the Act, leading to Julia's reliance upon s 18A. 5 Section 18A provides as follows:- " 18A Certain documents to constitute wills etc (1) A document purporting to embody the testamentary intentions of a deceased person, even though it has not been executed in accordance with the formal requirements of this Act, constitutes a will of the deceased person, an amendment of such a will or the revocation of such a will if the Court is satisfied that the deceased person intended the document to constitute the person's will, an amendment of the person's will or the revocation of the person's will. (2) In forming its view, the Court may have regard (in addition to the document) to any other evidence relating to the manner of execution or testamentary intentions of the deceased person, including evidence (whether admissible before the commencement of this section or otherwise of statements made by the deceased person." 6 In these proceedings the plaintiff claims that the Third Codicil was relevantly "an amendment" of the deceased's Will, intended by the deceased to constitute such an amendment. There is no dispute that, if the Third Codicil be valid, it would operate as "an amendment" within the meaning of this section. Sub-section (2) casts a wide evidentiary net which has led to the introduction into this case of a large amount of testimony, both affidavit and oral. It is necessary to set-out, by way of background, a number of facts established by this evidence. 7 Background The deceased was born in 1906 and came to Australia as an immigrant in 1919, where he joined members of his family who had immigrated earlier. Other members of the family arrived from Greece shortly thereafter. The family pursued a number of business interests in New South Wales, operating cafes and motion picture theatres. Interests in real estate were also acquired. 8 The deceased married his wife Anna on 12 October 1941, their children being born on the dates already mentioned. The deceased and his family settled in Taree where a theatre was acquired, extended and modernised by the deceased and his brother. Also, the deceased acquired the family home at 59 Pulteney Street, Taree. 9 In 1976 the deceased and his brother parted company in business under an agreement whereby the deceased retained assets in Taree and his brother received assets in Port Macquarie. Angelo, who was by then a solicitor, prepared, on his father's instructions, a discretionary trust into which all the Taree assets were transferred, the trust being managed by a company of the which the deceased and Angelo were the directors. Julia and the four defendants were made the beneficiaries of the trust, the real estate assets of which comprised eight lock-up shops in one part of Taree and a converted theatre development, comprising eight lock-up shops, an upstairs restaurant and upstairs offices in another part. 10 The children all received a reasonable standard of education in Taree and proceeded to tertiary education. Each gave evidence in these proceedings. Each showed himself and herself to be educated, articulate and intelligent. In his affidavit, Angelo described the circumstances of each of the siblings as follows:- " (a) I am a solicitor in my own practice in Maroubra Junction. I have been in practice for over 30 years. I am married to my wife Despina and we have three sons aged 23, 21 and 15. (b) Maria married Emanual Alexiou in 1965 and has four grown-up children. She is a licensed real estate agent and registered valuer having completed courses after her children completed their own education. Her husband is a butcher who has since sold his business and has two problem knees. For the past few years. She has been the main provider of her family. (c) Irene is a qualified pharmacist living in Adelaide. She married Jack Antonas in 1974 and has four children, two boys and two girls. The two boys are twins and have just completed their last year at school. One of her daughters is at university, and the other one has completed a university course and is self-employed. (d) Helen is a qualified primary school teacher teaching at Double Bay Primary School. She is married to Geoff Purcell and has two adult children. (e) Julia has one dependant child and has been separated from her husband since December 1997. She is a teacher at Clovelly High School. Her son James is approximately 5 years of age." 11 It appears that this was the situation with each of the defendants as at the time the deceased signed the third Codicil on 16 December 1997. It is suggested by Julia in her evidence that Maria's husband is still able to work in a butcher's shop but I do not consider that this is of any importance in the overall circumstances of the case. The evidence makes it clear that, whereas the other four children achieved stability both financial and domestic in their lives, Julia had had an unfortunate marriage and was, in comparison with the siblings, in an insecure situation. Her husband had been a problem and a poor provider. She had a young child, who had all his schooling ahead of him. Prior to December 1997 the deceased had been well aware of the precarious nature of her marriage and that she was financially insecure. Indeed, the final break-up of her marriage occurred in December 1997, the month in which the deceased signed the Third Codicil. 12 In February 1967 the Rose Bay home was purchased by the deceased in his wife's name. Members of the family were involved in tertiary education in Sydney and, it appears, the deceased wished to keep the family together. Maria had already married and was then living with her husband. Other members of the family moved into the Rose Bay home. Helen married in 1972 and moved out. Angelo and Irene both married in 1974 and left to set up their own homes. In the result Julia remained in the home with her parents. The house was renovated and extended in 1982. It appears that the residence at Taree was also maintained. The deceased and his wife spent time in Taree and in Sydney. After Julia married she and her husband lived in the Rose Bay home which appears to have been maintained at the deceased's expense. It suited the deceased to have the house occupied during the periods when he and the children's mother resided at Taree. He was not happy about Julia's marriage and, quite clearly, did not like or approve of her husband, whose surname was Fleetwood. 13 The affidavits are replete with the usual asserting and disputing of the degree of care and attention provided by each child to the parents whilst they were residing at Rose Bay and also at Taree. In my view, nothing turns on this evidence in this case. It is clear that the deceased loved all his children and was loved by each of them. 14 The deceased's wife Anna died on 30 March 1995. She left all of her Estate, including the Rose Bay home to the deceased absolutely. Her Will contained a provision that, in the event of the deceased predeceasing her then the Rose Bay home was devised to the trustees of her Estate "upon trust to permit my daughter Julia Fleetwood to reside in the said property for so long as she may wish, my said daughter to keep the said property in good repair and insured in the name of my Executors in the office and in the sum approved by them and further to pay all rates and taxes levied on the said property". Provision was also made for the sale of the property and the division of the proceeds between all the children, including Julia, in the event of her relinquishing her right of residence. 15 It is clear that, as at the date of his wife's death, the deceased had some concerns about Julia's situation and her relative insecurity in comparison with the situation in life of the other children. Although the evidence indicates that he had expressed views from time to time that all the children should be treated equally in their parents' Wills, he, apparently, expressed the view round about the time of the reading of his wife's Will that he thought that Julia should receive the Rose Bay home under his Will. This was not a suggestion which, then or later, found favour with any of the other children. Indeed, in my view, it is clear that from 1995 onwards the deceased oscillated, in his testamentary thinking, between providing Julia with the ownership of the Rose Bay home and with making only the same provision for her as had been made in her mother's Will, the latter provision preserving a significantly closer approach to equality between all the children. 16 In fact on 20 July 1995, the deceased executed a Will prepared by his solicitor Spencer Davies, at Taree, in which he repeated the provision in favour of Julia's residence in the Rose Bay home in the same terms as had been provided in his wife's Will. 17 In September 1995 the deceased became ill with cancer of the prostate and bowel. He was operated upon for these conditions in that month. It appears that the cancer returned in 1997 and his health, consequently, declined. In September 1997 he was admitted to the Mayo Hospital in Taree, as he had contracted pneumonia. Angelo visited him at the hospital in early September, when there was a discussion about Julia and the Rose Bay home. The deceased told Angelo that he was thinking about giving Julia the house. Angelo said to him: "I think you're asking for trouble. Do you want to divide the family?" He advised his father to leave everything the way it was and that if Julia was given the house absolutely the others would be upset and there would be a Court case. He said that it would not be fair if his father gave the house to Julia rather than providing for her to live in it for her life. His father said that he did not want to divide the family. 18 It appears that Angelo had not actually seen his father's 1995 Will as this was in the keeping of his father's Taree solicitor. However, it appears that he was aware, in general terms, of the provision made in it for Julia in respect of the Rose Bay home. What he was not aware of, however, was that on 20 August 1997, only shortly before his conversation with his father, the deceased had executed, validly in accordance with the Act, a further Codicil prepared by Spencer Davies which, in fact, gave the Rose Bay property to Julia absolutely. It is clear that his father did not acquaint Angelo with this fact during their discussion. 19 However, the deceased, obviously, was concerned by what Angelo had told him as to the effect upon the family, should he make this provision for Julia. On 10 September 1997, he formally revoked the Codicil in the presence of Mr Spencer Davies, by tearing it up. It appears that Angelo was unaware of these events until he was informed of them by Mr Davies, when the latter was preparing his affidavit in these proceedings. However, Maria gave evidence that when she visited the deceased at the Mayo hospital at around the same time the deceased told her that he had torn up the Codicil in favour of Julia's being given the Rose Bay property and that he had finally decided to leave things as they were contemplated by his wife's Will. 20 The evidence also indicates that from time to time, before his illness entered its final stages, he had conversations with his other children in which he raised his concerns about Julia's needs and in which he was firmly told by them that it would be unfair to the other children if she received the Rose Bay home absolutely. On those occasions he was admonished to deal with the matter in the same way as his wife had, in her Will. It seems that, on these occasions, he would apparently acquiesce in the view that all the children should be treated equally. 21 In late September 1997 the deceased, whose condition was deteriorating, was moved from Taree to the Sacred Heart Hospice in Sydney. Whilst he was there, in very early December, he spoke to his son Angelo and expressed his concerns about Julia and the problems that were occurring at that stage in her marriage. He said: "I want to give her the Rose Bay house". Angelo asked him why he kept bringing this up and the deceased replied that he wanted to help Julia because she did not have a house. Angelo advised him that, if he made such a provision for Julia, the family would fight in Court. His father said that he didn't want that. The tenor of the conversation, as deposed to by Angelo, however, strongly suggests to me that his father had raised the subject in the hope that Angelo would assist him in the alteration of his Will. He said, when Angelo's opposition to the change was made very obvious, "You are not going to help me". He later said the same thing, in the presence of Angelo, in relation to a cousin Denis Poultos, another solicitor, when he was visiting the deceased. He said to Angelo, referring to Poultos, "He won't help me either". 22 The significance of these conversations needs to be assessed against the fact that on 7 October 1997 the deceased had phoned Mr Davies and instructed him that he wanted to leave the Rose Bay home to Julia and that Mr Davies should prepare the necessary document and send it to the Rose Bay address. On 10 October 1997 Mr Davies complied with these instructions and sent the Third Codicil to Onslow Street. The deceased was made aware of this by Julia, who was residing at Onslow Street. He had told her to keep the document in his brief case, which Julia carried back and forth between the Hospice and Onslow Street. The Codicil had been accompanied by a letter from Mr Davies indicating the manner in which it should be executed and attested. I am satisfied that the deceased was aware of the need for two independent witnesses to observe his signing of the Will and to attest his signature. I think that he was hoping that either Angelo or Poultos would organise these matters for him. Neither of them knew that the deceased had received the Third Codicil from his solicitor in Taree. Mr Davies had forwarded, with the Codicil and the letter of instructions, an addressed envelope in which the Codicil was to be returned to his custody in Taree. 23 Julia gave evidence, which I accept, that in October, whilst he was at the Hospice, her father said to her that he wanted to look after her and the boy and that he had then used her mobile telephone to ring Spencer Davies at Taree. She had left the room whilst the call was being made. Later in October, when she had brought in the mail that had been forwarded to Onslow Street, he opened a letter in her presence and asked her what he was going to do with it. He told her that it was his Will. He said that he wanted to leave her the house. She said to him that she wanted him to be very sure about that. She told him that he would have to organise people to sign it. At that stage the Will was returned to the brief case. 24 She gave evidence that in November he expressed anxiety to get witnesses to deal with the Will and suggested that she talk to Denis Poultos. She did so and was told that her father should provide a statement as to why he wished to leave her the Rose Bay home. 25 On 5 December, at which time her father had been moved from the Hospice to the Nursing Home, Lulworth House, Julia's husband finally left her. On 7 December 1997 she told her father of this event and that Angelo was "looking after the settlement because I don't want to be landed with any more debts." Her father responded that he wanted to make her secure, that she needed a place for herself and the boy and that he wanted to leave her the house at Rose Bay. Julia told him that the other members of the family would not like that. He replied, "You have got the boy and you have got to educate him, the others have their own homes, their kids have grown up. Yours hasn't even started school." It was agreed that these were the reasons that he wanted to leave her the house. She suggested that he should write it down. She did so at his dictation and it was agreed that she should find a solicitor and arrange for him to come and see her father at Lulworth House. He agreed that he was happy with that arrangement and that it was what he really wanted to do. 26 Julia obtained the name of a solicitor from her accountant. It was Mr Chalmers of the firm of Chalmers, Marx of Bondi Junction. She saw him on 11 December 1997 taking with her the written notes. She explained that she was attending on behalf of her father and that she wanted Mr Chalmers to go and see him at the Nursing Home "because he has a Will and needs witnesses." She provided Mr Chalmers with the notes and asked that he "make absolutely sure it's what he wants to do and that he understands what he's doing." If her father decided that he didn't want to do it Mr Chalmers was to "just send an account". It was agreed that another witness should be found to accompany Mr Chalmers when he interviewed her father. The witness selected was a Mr John Cooney, apparently known to and liked by her father, who was a next door neighbour. 27 Julia told her father of these arrangements and was told by him to bring in to him the brief case where the Codicil had been placed. She complied with this request. 28 None of these arrangements were known to other members of the family, although it appears that the deceased, in a conversation with a witness, Philip Edward Michael, an old friend of the family, on 16 December 1997 told him that he was "seeing a solicitor tonight". 29 On that night Mr Chalmers and Mr Cooney called upon the deceased in his room at Lulworth House. Mr Chalmers, of course, did not have the Third Codicil with him. It was in the possession of the deceased having been brought to him earlier in the day by Julia as part of the contents of his brief case. It is clear that, in addition to the Codicil itself, the deceased had the accompanying letter from Spencer Davies together with the envelope in which the material had been sent from Taree and the return envelope in which it had been contemplated that the duly executed Codicil would be sent back. Mr Chalmers had with him a type written statement of the deceased's reasons for executing the Codicil. This document had been prepared in his office and amounted to a re-working of the written material supplied to him by Julia, being the notes she had taken in the discussion referred to above. 30 I am satisfied that the deceased was expecting the visit from Mr Chalmers and Mr Cooney. It had been, in effect, organised at his request by Julia. Its purpose was to give effect to the intention that he had made manifest to her, to provide her with ownership of the home. There is no issue as to the deceased's testamentary capacity, nor is it asserted that any undue influence had been exercised upon him. 31 Mr Chalmers gave evidence that he visited the deceased late in the afternoon on his way home from work. He gives the following account, in his affidavit, of what occurred in the deceased's room:- "I went in and met John Cooney the neighbour. I said to George Hatsatouris 'I am Michael Chalmers, a solicitor, and I understand you want to have the Codicil signed. I have not seen the Codicil have you got it?' He had a pile of papers on a trolley and he went through the papers and pulled out the Codicil. I had a look at it. I then said to Mr Hatsatouris 'Would you read through the Statement and tell me if it is correct'. He read the Statement and said 'Yes, I want Julia to have the house.' I then had a conversation with him in a general nature such as 'How is the nursing home'. I read the Statement to him in the presence of Mr Cooney. I believe there was another bed in the room but there was no-one else present apart from myself, Mr Cooney and the deceased. After I read the Statement aloud to him he said 'Yes, that's what I want for Julia'. I said to him 'Do you know what this document means? It is a statement that you dictated to Julia but I have changed it a little' and he said 'Yes'. The Statement was then signed by myself, Mr Cooney and the deceased at the same time the deceased signed the Codicil to the will in our presence." 32 I accept this as an accurate account of what occurred in relation to the signing by the deceased of both the Third Codicil and the Statement. It is to be observed that the Statement was witnessed both by Mr Chalmers and Mr Cooney. However, before the Codicil could be witnessed in the presence of the deceased, the proceedings were interrupted by the entry into the room of the hospital Matron who demanded that the document be not signed. She asserted that the hospital might be liable if the signing took place. She required that Mr Chalmers and Mr Cooney leave the room and discuss the matter outside. There is no need to set out the discussion that then took place. It is clear from Mr Chalmers' affidavit and also his oral evidence that there was a reasonably heated exchange between himself and the Matron, he insisting that he had a right to complete the business upon which he was engaged and she insisting that he should leave the premises. Mr Cooney was clearly embarrassed and left. Mr Chalmers, knowing that the Matron was in control of the premises, ultimately gave in and also left the premises. It appears that the Matron had confiscated the documents but, it would seem, must have handed them back to Mr Chalmers before his departure. These documents were the signed Statement, the Third Codicil signed by the deceased but not signed by the witnesses, the two envelopes and the letter from Mr Davies. 33 Mr Chalmers had not been allowed to speak to the deceased from the time of the interruption, although he had sought to do so in order to explain what had occurred. Sometime before his departure the deceased's daughter Helen came upon the scene. It appears that she was told both by Mr Chalmers before he left and also by the deceased that the deceased had not signed anything. When Angelo later got in touch with Mr Chalmers, Mr Chalmers also told him that the deceased had not signed. Unfortunately this matter was not addressed in either the oral or in affidavit evidence of Mr Chalmers. His statement as to non-signature by the deceased was, consequently, neither denied nor explained. In light of the fact that the deceased clearly signed both the Statement and the Codicil, this part of the evidence remains a mystery. 34 Although the deceased denied signing anything or later expressed doubt as to whether he had or not, I am quite satisfied that he was aware that he had signed both documents. He had, quite clearly, made up his mind to execute the Third Codicil, which he had had knowledge of for some time, and which he had in his possession, for the purpose of giving effect to the intention that he then had of devising the Rose Bay home to Julia. He was aware of the steps that had been taken to enable him to execute the Third Codicil. He was expecting the solicitor to arrive that evening, together with Mr Cooney. I am quite prepared to infer that it was his intention to execute the Codicil privately, as he had done on previous occasions in Taree, and then forward it to the custody of his solicitor, in the envelope provided. 35 He had not expected the dramatic interruption which had occurred. Nor would he have expected that his daughter Helen would have come upon the scene at the time she did. Although I am satisfied that he was completely clear in his mind at the time when he was signing the documents, I am prepared to accept that, thereafter, he was in a state of embarrassment and concern. This led him to assert that he had not signed anything. 36 It is clear that the next day he was concerned about what he had done. He knew it was known and would lead to family upset and dispute. In the presence of his daughter Maria and, after she had had a conversation with Mr Davies on her mobile phone, he spoke to him. The gist of that conversation is recorded in a file note attached to Mr Davies' affidavit. It reads as follows:- "17 December 1997 George Hatsatouris - instructions to send down document to revoke third Codicil which George believed had been signed the day before providing for Rose Bay property to be left to Julia absolutely. Address: Lulworth House, St. Lukes Complex, 73 Roslyn Gardens, Kings Cross." 37 Julia entered the room whilst this telephone conversation was occurring. She made some angry comments. She had received a phone call from the Matron in which she had been criticised in strong terms. It is not surprising that she felt hurt at what had occurred. I do not think anything turns upon the remarks that were made in this conversation. 38 The defendants rely upon a note in the Lulworth House Nursing Home nursing notes dated 17 December 1997. This purports to record a statement made by the deceased to the Matron. It appears to read:- "Rang daughter - not at home. Stated as I walked to dining room, Are you the lady from last night? I have decided to leave my will as it was - fair to everyone. I said to him, that was indeed what he had agreed to do last night. He then asked me who the two men were. I replied, Julia's solicitor, Julia's neighbour. He replied, you asked them to leave. I said, yes I did - He then stated, that's good all the family would be upset with me, that's what I was going to do - it would be better if I was a pensioner and had no money. I reassured him that everything was okay. He stated to come back and see him." 39 It is difficult to know what to make of this statement. The matron did not give evidence, although the evidence of Julia as to the conversation that she had with her on the telephone after the interruption had occurred, suggests that she held views favourable to the defendants. The impression I gain from the note is that the deceased was upset that the steps he had taken had resulted in a significant family row. I am satisfied that as at 17 December, in the circumstances which had occurred, he had decided it was best to seek to re-establish the status quo, rather than provoke further disputes. Hence the call to Mr Davies. 40 I also consider that, although he knew that he had signed the Third Codicil and Statement the night before, he also knew that the Codicil had not been signed by the witnesses in his presence. He would have known, from prior experience, that this attestation was normally required to confer validity on a will or codicil, at least in the sense that that was what had been required in the past. Moreover, these were the instructions in the letter accompanying the Third Codicil. Consequently, even if he intended the Codicil to be effective when he signed it (a matter to which I shall return), he may well have had doubts, in light of the lack of attestation, that he had given effect to his intentions. Quite clearly, of course, he was unaware of s. 18A of the Act. 41 Angelo had arrived at Lulworth House on the evening of 16 December 1997 after being informed by Helen of the incident which had occurred. By the time he arrived Mr Chalmers had departed. He had a conversation, however, with his father in which he was told that Julia had sent a solicitor to get him to sign something for Rose Bay but that he didn't sign it. As I have said, I am satisfied that in fact he knew he had signed it. I consider that he did not want to admit this to Angelo whom he, rightly, supposed would be annoyed. Angelo, it would appear, inferred that his father had been a party to arranging the attendance of the solicitor. He said to his father: "Haven't we talked about this before?.. Why do you want to do it? It's going to destroy the family." 42 His father replied: "She hasn't got a house." 43 Further discussion ensued, the purport of which was that Angelo insisted that the giving of the house to Julia would be unfair to the others. His final comment to his father on this occasion was, in the context that his father did not have enough money to equalise the situation with the other siblings, "then it's not a good idea to pursue giving the house to her even though you are thinking it might be a good idea to do so." 44 Although I shall make reference to evidence of what occurred between 17 December and the date of the deceased's death, it is convenient to state now that, in my view, whatever he may have said on other occasions, the deceased continued to think it would be "a good idea" to give the house to Julia for the reasons he had subscribed to in the statement signed before Mr Chalmers and Mr Cooney. The terms of that statement are as follows:- I, George Hatsatouris, currently residing at Lulworth House, St Vincent's Hospital hereby document why I have left my property at 82 Onslow Street, Rose Bay in the State of New South Wales solely to my daughter, Julia Hatsatouris (Fleetwood) and not equally to all my children including Angelo Hatsatouris, Maria Alexiou, Irene Antonas and Helen Purcell and I ask these reasons to be considered in any judicial challenge by any person to this determination of mine made and recorded in my third Codicil dated 16 December 1997. 1. All of my other children have their own home, other than Julia Hatsatouris. 2. All my other children are securely married. 3. Julia Hatsatouris is a sole parent with a son of pre-school age who still has to have a full education. The majority of my other grandchildren have or almost have completed their secondary education. 4. Julia Hatsatouris has been the main carer of my wife (until her death) and myself over the years and has looked after our personal hygiene and cleanliness. 5. Julia Hatsatouris has had to go through a divorce and needs, like my other children, the security of her own home."