Executor’s Right to Possession Versus a Family Provision Occupation Claim: When Does a Pending Succession Act Proceeding Justify Staying in the Estate Home Rent-Free?

Based on the authentic Australian judicial case Theocharous v Theocharous [2025] NSWSC 45, this article disassembles the Court’s judgment process regarding evidence and law. It transforms complex judicial reasoning into clear, understandable key point analyses, helping readers identify the core of the dispute, understand the judgment logic, make more rational litigation choices, and providing case resources for practical research to readers of all backgrounds.

Chapter 1: Case Overview and Core Disputes

Basic Information

Court of Hearing: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Presiding Judge: Parker J
Cause of Action: Possession proceedings concerning estate property; costs dispute; interaction with pending family provision proceedings; cross-claim for proprietary estoppel life estate (not pursued)
Judgment Date: 12 February 2025 (reasons for orders made 4 February 2025)
Core Keywords:
Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case
Keyword 2: Estate possession dispute
Keyword 3: Family provision proceedings strategy
Keyword 4: Caveat lapse consequences
Keyword 5: Costs follow the event
Keyword 6: UCPR offer of compromise and indemnity costs

Background

A deceased estate’s principal asset was the former family home. The executor, acting to realise and distribute the estate under a will dividing proceeds equally among children, faced a practical barrier: one adult child remained in occupation and asserted that the deceased had promised continued occupation for life. Parallel family provision proceedings were already on foot. Meanwhile, the executor entered into a contract for sale to external purchasers, creating commercial and litigation pressure. The case ultimately asked the Court to manage the collision between (1) the executor’s duty to administer the estate and (2) the occupant’s attempt to hold position through family provision and an asserted equitable interest.

Core Disputes and Claims

1. Possession:

– Plaintiff’s position: As legal owner (as executor / estate representative), entitled to vacant possession to facilitate administration and sale.
– Defendant’s position: Did not consent to possession but ultimately advanced no substantive opposition at hearing; previously foreshadowed a right to continue occupation by life interest mechanisms.

1. Equity-based life interest:

– Defendant cross-claim: proprietary estoppel life estate (ultimately not pursued; dismissed for lack of evidence and prosecution).

1. Costs:

– Plaintiff sought: costs against Defendant (and later indemnity costs after offer).
– Defendant sought: no inter partes order; plaintiff’s costs to come from the estate as an administration expense; common costs to be dealt with differently given pending family provision proceedings.

---

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

The relationship began as family life, then hardened into litigation because “home” became the estate’s only meaningful asset.

The deceased’s home had once functioned as a family base. After the earlier death of the deceased’s spouse, the property became an income-producing asset, with the deceased living elsewhere for a period. Years later, the deceased returned to the home and the eventual Defendant moved in as well after personal upheaval. For a long period, the household ran on a practical arrangement rather than formal legal documentation: the Defendant lived there and asserted he contributed to the deceased’s care.

The decisive change was the deceased’s move into aged care and later death. From that point, the property ceased to be “mum’s home where a child lives” and became “the estate’s principal asset” subject to the executor’s duty to realise and distribute.

Conflict foreshadowing arrived through three escalating moments:

1. The Defendant framed his continued occupation as a moral entitlement grounded in long care and alleged promises.
2. The executor framed the estate administration as a legal obligation that could not be stalled indefinitely by unparticularised claims.
3. A sale contract to external purchasers introduced a third-party interest, converting an internal family disagreement into an urgent risk event: delay could expose the estate to contractual liability and complicate any future “occupation” remedy.

In plain terms, the litigation was not just about who “deserved” the home. It was about whether one party could stop an executor from doing what the will and the law require, without taking the formal protective steps that the law expects.

---

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

Plaintiff’s Main Evidence and Arguments

1. Legal title and entitlement to possession

– A formal affidavit establishing legal ownership/control of the property as estate representative.
– Core proposition: the registered owner is prima facie entitled to possession; absent a successfully maintained caveat, injunction, or proven equitable interest, occupation is unjustified.

1. Executor duties and sale process

– Evidence of contracts for sale, including the purchase price (AUD $1.3 million) and relevant contractual terms affecting completion timing.
– Argument: failure to secure vacant possession and complete may expose the estate to claims or damages; continuing rent-free occupation is inconsistent with administration duties.

1. Procedural conduct by Defendant

– Reliance on correspondence demonstrating the Defendant’s legal team foreshadowed occupation demands but did not properly secure them.
– Reliance on the fact that the caveat was permitted to lapse and no injunction was pursued.

1. Costs framework

– General rule: costs follow the event under UCPR r 42.1.
– Indemnity costs: mandatory consequences of a valid offer of compromise under UCPR r 42.14 once prerequisites met.

Respondent’s Main Evidence and Arguments

1. Narrative of care and promises

– Defendant’s affidavit account: moved in at the deceased’s request, bore the burden of caring, and received promises of life-long occupation.

1. “Life interest” asserted through correspondence

– Solicitor letters asserted that the Defendant sought “a life estate” or “continued occupation” and demanded undertakings not to sell, plus disclosure about sale circumstances.

1. Objection to urgency / critique of process

– Suggested the executor’s separate possession proceedings were unnecessary and that matters should have been dealt with within the succession list practice framework, or via directions in the family provision proceedings.

1. Homelessness emphasis

– Argument framing: eviction would make the Defendant homeless, implying an injunction would be available to restrain sale or possession.

Core Dispute Points

1. Does a pending family provision claim justify continued occupation without court protection?
2. What is the legal effect of merely foreshadowing a “life interest” in letters but failing to plead and prosecute an equitable claim or obtain interlocutory relief?
3. How should costs be allocated where possession proceedings are prepared alongside, but distinct from, pending family provision proceedings?
4. When does an offer of compromise compel indemnity costs, and what counts as “some good reason” to depart?

---

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

Affidavit practice in this matter illustrated a common litigation dynamic: narrative intensity does not replace procedural precision.

The Defendant’s affidavit material emphasised lived reality: years of cohabitation, caregiving, and alleged assurances. That form of evidence can be compelling in family provision disputes because it speaks to dependency, contributions, and moral claims. However, in possession proceedings, the Court’s starting point is legal entitlement to possession. A narrative of promises must be translated into the correct legal vehicle and properly protected.

The Plaintiff’s affidavit material was comparatively sparse but structurally powerful: legal title, estate administration context, and an absence of any properly maintained legal restraint on possession. In possession litigation, a short affidavit that proves legal entitlement can outweigh a longer affidavit that does not anchor itself to enforceable relief.

Strategic intent behind the procedural approach becomes clear once one considers what the Court was being asked to do. The Court was not asked to determine the ultimate merits of family provision or whether the deceased should have provided further accommodation. Instead, it was asked to determine whether possession should be granted now, and what should happen with costs. That narrowed the evidentiary battlefield.

From a practitioner perspective, the key lesson is that affidavits must match the relief sought. If the real objective is continued occupation, the affidavit strategy must align with:
– a properly articulated claim for occupation relief,
– a basis for interlocutory restraint if needed, and
– evidence going to balance of convenience, including capacity to pay an occupation fee or other protective measures.

---

Chapter 5: Court Orders

Before final reasons were published, the Court managed the matter as part of coordinated preparation with the pending family provision proceedings, including listing and hearing allocation in an expedited setting. Procedural arrangements included:

• Case management to align possession proceedings with existing succession-related litigation.
• Allocation of a multi-day hearing window, anticipating that possession and associated claims might require evidence and submissions.
• Directions recognising the practical overlap between the proceedings but preserving the ability to dispose of the possession claim separately if it became straightforward.

A notable procedural feature was the Court’s pragmatic sequencing: possession could be dealt with first if it crystallised, without forcing the Court to attempt the family provision hearing where evidentiary service issues prevented it.

---

Chapter 6: Hearing Scene: Ultimate Showdown of Evidence and Logic

The hearing unfolded less like a dramatic cross-examination battle and more like a demonstration of what happens when a party approaches a possession fight with the wrong procedural tools.

Process Reconstruction: Live Restoration

The critical turning point was that the Defendant did not pursue the proprietary estoppel claim and did not substantively contest the Plaintiff’s prima facie entitlement to possession. With no contrary evidence and no developed defence, the Court could decide possession quickly.

In practical terms, the “cross-examination theatre” never fully materialised because the case narrowed to:
– proof of legal entitlement,
– confirmation the cross-claim was not prosecuted, and
– determining costs consequences.

Core Evidence Confrontation

The most decisive “confrontation” was not between witnesses, but between legal positions:

• Position A: A registered owner (executor) is entitled to possession; estate duties require realisation and distribution; third-party sale contract adds risk.
• Position B: Occupation is morally justified and should continue because of a family provision claim and alleged promises.

The Court’s approach treated Position B as insufficient without the legal mechanisms that could, in principle, restrain or qualify possession: a properly pleaded equitable claim, a maintained caveat, or an interlocutory injunction.

Judicial Reasoning

The Court applied a structured chain: entitlement → absence of opposing evidence → possession granted → cross-claim dismissed → costs follow event → offer of compromise triggers indemnity costs.

“There was no dispute that, as the legal owner … [the Plaintiff] was prima facie entitled to possession.”

This statement was determinative because it fixed the default rule. Once the Defendant abandoned the proprietary estoppel claim and did not prosecute interlocutory protection, there was no remaining legal mechanism to hold off possession.

“The onus lay on [the Defendant] to establish good reasons for deferring the performance of those obligations.”

This was the Court’s procedural and moral pivot: the executor’s duty is not suspended by a bare assertion of hardship or an incomplete claim. The party who wants the status quo must do the legal work required to justify it.

---

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

The Court made orders granting possession to the Plaintiff, dismissing the cross-claim, permitting issue of a writ of possession, and staying execution for 28 days to allow the Defendant to vacate.

On costs, the Court ordered:
– the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff’s costs of the possession proceedings (including cross-claim),
– but excluding costs common to the pending family provision proceedings,
– on the ordinary basis up to 4:00 pm on 30 January 2025,
– and thereafter on the indemnity basis due to the offer of compromise consequences.

---

Chapter 8: In-depth Analysis of the Judgment: How Law and Evidence Lay the Foundation for Victory

Special Analysis

This case’s jurisprudential value lies less in novel doctrine and more in disciplined insistence on procedural architecture in estate litigation. It illustrates how courts protect the executor’s administrative function from being paralysed by informal claims, and how litigation tools such as caveats, injunctions, pleadings, and offers of compromise operate as the real levers of advantage.

It also demonstrates a subtle policy point: family provision is an important protective regime, but it is not a free-standing licence to occupy estate property indefinitely. Courts expect claimants to seek appropriate interim relief and accept the burdens that usually accompany it.

Judgment Points

1. Possession remains the default position
   The Court treated legal title as decisive absent a properly prosecuted equitable or statutory restraint. This keeps the estate administration system functional: executors can realise assets unless restrained by a court on a principled basis.

2. Correspondence does not substitute for pleaded relief
   The Defendant’s early letters asserted a life interest or occupation claim, but the Court treated this as insufficient to displace possession. Litigation is not won by warnings; it is won by enforceable orders and properly framed pleadings.

3. Family provision claims do not create a caveatable interest
   The Court reinforced that the mere fact of a family provision proceeding does not itself generate a proprietary interest capable of supporting a caveat. A claimant who wants to prevent dealings must use the correct mechanism, usually injunctive relief, and must meet its tests.

4. Caveat strategy has consequences
   The Defendant lodged a caveat but permitted it to lapse. That lapse materially changed the executor’s reasonable conduct assessment. Once the caveat lapsed and no injunction was pursued, commencing possession proceedings was treated as justified.

5. The executor’s duty is not suspended by claimed hardship
   Hardship and homelessness are relevant to an injunction or to ultimate family provision discretion, but they do not automatically defeat possession. The Court located the burden where the law expects it: the occupant must justify why the executor should be restrained.

6. Third-party sale contracts change the landscape
   Once external purchasers acquire an equitable interest under a contract, the legal system becomes reluctant to make orders that would undermine those rights, especially where the claimant has not secured interim relief.

7. Costs are not a moral consolation prize
   Even where a case arises from family tragedy, litigation choices attract costs consequences. Losing a possession claim (and abandoning an equitable cross-claim) triggers the usual rule, subject to the Court’s tailored handling of common costs.

8. Offers of compromise can compel indemnity costs
   Once the offer was valid, more favourable than outcome, and reasonably open, the Court treated indemnity costs as mandatory absent good reason to depart. In practice, this can dwarf the substantive dispute’s economic significance.

Legal Basis

• Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005:

  • r 42.1: general rule that costs follow the event
  • r 42.14: indemnity costs consequences following an offer of compromise
  • r 6.12(1): originating process must specifically state relief sought
• Succession Act 2006 (NSW):
  • s 65: nature of family provision orders; must specify amount and nature of provision and manner of provision
• Probate and Administration Act 1898 (NSW):
  • ss 44, 61: executor title relating back to date of death (relevant to the sale-contract discussion and administration authority)

Evidence Chain

Victory Point 1: Legal title + unchallenged affidavit evidence
Conclusion: Possession granted
Evidence: Plaintiff affidavit; absence of contrary evidence; abandonment of proprietary estoppel claim.

Victory Point 2: Failure to maintain caveat + no injunction
Conclusion: No interim protection; executor justified in seeking possession
Evidence: Caveat lapsed; no proceedings to extend caveat; no interlocutory application.

Victory Point 3: Pleading deficiency in family provision relief
Conclusion: “Occupation for life” objective not properly embedded in originating process
Evidence: The originating summons sought general “further provision” without specifying the claimed occupation structure.

Victory Point 4: External purchasers contract and completion risk
Conclusion: Executor’s position strengthened; delay risked breach/damages and third-party equities
Evidence: Contract terms; completion timing; Court’s analysis of breach risk and equitable interest.

Victory Point 5: Offer of compromise timing and content
Conclusion: Indemnity costs after expiry
Evidence: Offer more favourable than outcome; validity conceded; reasonable time conceded; no good reason advanced.

Judicial Original Quotation

“Originating process must ‘specifically state’ the relief sought.”

Why determinative: The Court used this principle to reject the idea that a claimant can keep relief vague and later rely on correspondence to reshape the litigation’s practical consequences. In an estate dispute where occupation is the true battleground, specificity is not pedantry; it is the gateway to effective interim and final relief.

“Such a claim does not give rise to a caveatable interest.”

Why determinative: This locked in the procedural consequence: if there is no caveatable interest, and no injunction is sought, the executor’s administrative pathway remains open. The Defendant’s failure to select and prosecute the correct protective mechanism made possession litigation almost inevitable.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure

1. The wrong tool for the job
   The Defendant relied on family provision as if it automatically preserved occupation. The Court treated that as an error: family provision is a discretionary remedial jurisdiction, not a present proprietary shield.

2. Failure to translate narrative into enforceable relief
   Alleged promises and long cohabitation can support proprietary estoppel, or can be relevant to a family provision order structure. But the Defendant did not prosecute the estoppel claim and did not secure interim restraint grounded in evidence and legal tests.

3. Caveat mismanagement
   Lodging a caveat and permitting it to lapse signalled either a lack of confidence or a lack of procedural discipline. Once the caveat fell away, the executor could rationally proceed to protect the estate’s position.

4. Overconfidence about pleading practice
   The assumption that relief need not be specified in family provision originating process was treated as incorrect. That mattered because unclear relief makes it harder to justify interim orders and harder to focus litigation.

5. Underestimating costs weapons
   By not accepting an offer of compromise that was later conceded to be more favourable than the outcome, the Defendant triggered indemnity costs exposure. This is a recurring litigation trap: a party focuses on the “home” issue and forgets that costs can become the largest financial consequence.

Implications

1. If you want to stay in an estate property, you must earn that position in court procedure, not just in moral argument.
2. A family provision claim can be powerful, but it is not a lock on the front door. Interim restraint must be sought and justified.
3. Caveats and injunctions are not symbolic gestures; they are high-stakes procedural commitments with strict consequences.
4. Executors cannot responsibly “wait and see” forever. If no enforceable restraint exists, administration duties push them toward possession and sale steps.
5. Offers of compromise are not mere formalities. Ignoring them can convert a survivable dispute into a financially crushing outcome.

Q&A Session

Q1: Why didn’t the Court simply let the occupant stay until the family provision case finished?
A: Because possession follows legal entitlement unless restrained. A claimant who wants the status quo must seek the appropriate interlocutory orders and satisfy the court’s tests, including balance of convenience and often undertakings or occupation arrangements.

Q2: Could the occupant still win something in the family provision proceedings after losing possession?
A: Potentially, yes. Family provision is discretionary and may still yield further provision depending on the evidence and statutory criteria. But losing possession can reduce the chance of an occupation-style remedy if the property is sold or third-party equities intervene.

Q3: What is the single biggest strategic mistake shown here?
A: Treating correspondence and informal assertions as if they create enforceable protection. The legal system rewards timely, properly framed claims and interim applications supported by evidence.

---

Appendix: Reference for Comparable Case Judgments and Practical Guidelines

1. Practical Positioning of This Case

Case Subtype: Wills and Estates – Estate Administration Possession Dispute Interacting with Family Provision Proceedings and Interim Protective Measures
Judgment Nature Definition: Final Judgment (as to possession and costs in the possession proceedings), with related family provision proceedings pending separately

2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements

Core Test Standards for Wills, Estates and Succession Law

Core Test: Validity of a Will
In disputes where validity is in issue, courts commonly consider whether:
1. The testator had testamentary capacity at the time of execution, including understanding the nature and effect of making a will, the extent of their property, and the claims of those who might expect to benefit.
2. The will was executed in accordance with the applicable formal requirements, and the execution was voluntary.
3. There was undue influence, coercion, or duress that overbore the testator’s free agency.
4. There was fraud or knowledge and approval issues, including whether the testator knew and approved the will’s contents.
Risk warning: Outcomes tend to be fact-specific and can involve competing medical and lay evidence; apparent lucidity alone may be insufficient if cognitive decline evidence is strong.

Core Test: Family Provision Claims
In family provision matters, the court generally addresses two large questions:
1. Eligibility: whether the claimant falls within the relevant class entitled to apply.
2. Adequate provision: whether the deceased failed to make adequate provision for the claimant’s proper maintenance, education, or advancement in life.

The analysis commonly weighs:
– the claimant’s financial position and needs, including housing, health, earning capacity, and liabilities;
– the nature of the relationship with the deceased, including dependency, contributions, and care;
– competing claims of other beneficiaries and the size of the estate;
– the deceased’s moral obligation, assessed in context.
Risk warning: A strong emotional narrative does not necessarily translate into orders if the estate is small, creditors are significant, or other claimants have competing needs.

Core Test: Interim Protection of Estate Assets and Occupation Objectives
Where a claimant’s practical objective is to stop sale or maintain occupation pending determination, the typical interim pathways include:
1. Injunction: requiring proof of a serious question to be tried and that the balance of convenience supports restraint.
2. Undertakings and occupation terms: courts may require occupation fees or other arrangements to protect the estate and other beneficiaries while preserving the claimant’s position.
3. Procedural precision in relief: the originating process and supporting material should clearly articulate the occupation-style relief sought so that interim restraint aligns with final relief.
Risk warning: Courts tend to scrutinise interim restraints that impede estate administration, especially where third-party purchasers are involved or creditors’ claims exist.

---

3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims

Even where statutory avenues are uncertain or narrow, equity and common law doctrines can sometimes supply alternative pathways. This section identifies plausible counter-attacks and their constraints.

Promissory or Proprietary Estoppel

Key elements commonly examined include:
1. Clear and unequivocal promise or representation: a statement or conduct by the deceased that reasonably conveyed that the claimant would have ongoing rights in the property.
2. Reliance: the claimant acted on the promise in a way that was reasonable in the circumstances.
3. Detriment: the claimant suffered a substantial detriment if the promise is not honoured, such as giving up accommodation, income opportunities, or providing uncompensated care.
4. Unconscionability: it would be against conscience for the legal owner or estate to resile from the promise.
Risk warning: Vague family assurances, inconsistent conduct, or lack of corroboration tends to be treated cautiously; credibility and contemporaneous evidence are critical.

Practical evidence that tends to matter:
– contemporaneous texts, emails, letters, or witnesses who heard promises;
– financial records demonstrating contributions to mortgage, rates, repairs, renovations, or living costs;
– evidence of changed life decisions caused by reliance, such as foregoing employment or housing alternatives.

Unjust Enrichment and Constructive Trust

Where the claimant cannot prove a clear promise but can prove an enrichment of the estate at their expense, the court may consider:
1. Benefit conferred: money, labour, renovations, or substantial caregiving beyond normal family expectation.
2. At the claimant’s expense: the claimant bore the cost or opportunity loss.
3. Unjust factor: such as failure of basis, unconscionability, or other recognised grounds.
4. Remedy: restitutionary award or declaration of beneficial interest.
Risk warning: Courts often distinguish ordinary familial contributions from contributions that generate proprietary consequences; the line can be difficult and fact-driven.

Procedural Fairness and Protective Strategy

Where the real dispute is interim control of the asset, procedural fairness principles appear indirectly through:
– whether each party had proper notice and opportunity to present evidence in interim applications;
– whether interlocutory relief is sought with full and frank disclosure;
– whether relief sought is proportionate to the harm feared.

Risk warning: A party who delays, withholds key information, or fails to bring the correct application promptly tends to face elevated procedural risk.

---

4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances

Regular Thresholds

1. Family provision limitation timeframe: claims must generally be brought within the statutory timeframe applicable in the jurisdiction, subject to extension powers in certain circumstances.
2. Interim restraint thresholds: injunctions require a serious question to be tried and a balance of convenience favouring restraint; courts often consider whether damages would be an adequate remedy and whether the claimant can give undertakings.
3. Caveat sustainability: where a caveat is lodged, lapsing notices and extension applications impose hard procedural deadlines and evidentiary burdens.

Risk warning: Missing procedural deadlines tends to be determinative; courts are often reluctant to preserve rights where a party has not used available mechanisms promptly.

Exceptional Channels

1. Injunction notwithstanding sale steps: in some cases, courts may restrain dealings if the claimant shows strong prospects and serious irreparable harm, especially where third-party equities have not crystallised.
2. Occupation on terms: courts may allow continued occupation if the claimant pays an occupation fee or if arrangements can preserve the estate’s value pending determination.
3. Extension or revival opportunities: some procedural failures can sometimes be mitigated if quickly addressed with credible explanation and an arguable merits basis, though outcomes are uncertain.

Suggestion: Do not abandon a potential claim simply because the standard pathway looks difficult. Compare your position to the available interim mechanisms and exceptions, because they often determine whether your claim remains practically meaningful.

---

5. Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation

Citation Angle

It is recommended to cite this case in submissions or advice involving:
– executor’s entitlement to possession pending family provision proceedings;
– the procedural necessity of specifying relief in originating process;
– the principle that family provision claims do not create caveatable interests;
– allocation of common costs between related proceedings;
– operation of offer of compromise rules leading to indemnity costs.

Citation Method

As Positive Support:
– When your matter involves an estate occupant resisting possession without maintained caveat or injunction, citing this authority can support the proposition that the executor is not obliged to tolerate continued rent-free occupation absent proper interim relief.

As a Distinguishing Reference:
– If the opposing party cites this case, you should emphasise the uniqueness of your matter, such as: a properly pleaded proprietary claim actively prosecuted, a maintained caveat with successful extension, a granted interlocutory injunction, or evidence showing the estate can preserve occupation without impairing creditor and beneficiary interests.

Anonymisation Rule: In practice notes or client communications, do not use real names of parties; use procedural titles consistent with the forum and orders.

---

Conclusion

This judgment shows that estate disputes are decided as much by procedure as by principle. A claimant who seeks to remain in an estate property must convert personal hardship into properly framed relief, supported by evidence, and protected through timely interim applications. An executor who acts to administer and realise assets will usually be supported where the opposing party does not secure enforceable restraint.

Everyone needs to understand the law and see the world through the lens of law. The in-depth analysis of this authentic judgment is intended to help everyone gradually establish a new legal mindset: True self-protection stems from the early understanding and mastery of legal rules.

Disclaimer

This article is based on the study and analysis of the public judgment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Theocharous v Theocharous [2025] NSWSC 45), aimed at promoting legal research and public understanding. The citation of relevant judgment content is limited to the scope of fair dealing for the purposes of legal research, comment, and information sharing.

The analysis, structural arrangement, and expression of views contained in this article are the original content of the author, and the copyright belongs to the author and this platform. This article does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be regarded as legal advice for any specific situation.

---

Original Case File:

👉 Can’t see the full document?
Click here to download the original judgment document.