Page Page 1 of 9 DOCUMENTS: CaseBase CasesScott MacRae Investments Pty Ltd v Baylily Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 823; BC201205381Court: NSWSCJudges: Hammerschlag JJudgment Date: 16/7/2012Catchwords & DigestSuccession -- Family provision -- Adequacy of provision -- Adult childSuccession -- Administration of estates -- Litigation involving deceased's estate -- SettlementApplication for orders.Applicant deceased's son commenced proceedings for family provision.Entered into deed of settlement with respondents executors of deceased's estate.Sought release of applicant's rights to apply for family provision pursuant to (NSW) Succession Act 2006 s 95.Established on evidence terms of settlement fair and reasonable.Established applicant received independent legal advice and had given due consideration to legal advice received.Accordingly, appropriate to make orders pursuant to s 95 because requirements of s 95(4) were met.Application granted.Litigation HistoryAnnotations: All Cases Sort by: Judgment Date (Latest First)AnnotationCase NameCitationsCourtDateSignalRelatedScott MacRae Investments Pty Ltd v Baylily Pty Ltd[2011] NSWCA 82; BC201101954NSWCA8/4/2011RelatedScott MacRae Investments Pty Ltd v Baylily Pty Ltd[2010] NSWSC 174; BC201001883NSWSC12/3/2010Legislation considered by this caseLegislation Name & JurisdictionProvisionsSuccession Act 2006 (NSW) s 95Page Page 2 of 9 DOCUMENTS: CaseBase CasesBrown-Sarre v Waddingham [2012] VSC 116; BC201201729Court: VSCJudges: Habersberger JJudgment Date: 30/3/2012Catchwords & DigestPractice and procedure -- Settlement -- Approval -- Interests of beneficiariesMortgages and securities -- Mortgages -- Default -- SettlementSuccession -- Administration of estates -- Litigation involving deceased's estate -- SettlementApplication for approval to enter into settlement deed.Applicant appointed administrator of deceased's estate following removal of respondent deceased's wife as executor who was also sole beneficiary under will.Deceased entered into credit contract with third party company to borrow $200,000 secured by mortgage over deceased's family home.Third party company commenced proceedings in VCAT following deceased's default on loan.VCAT found credit contract and mortgage unjust and should be set aside subject to deceased's estate paying sum of $46,000 to third party company.Third party company commenced proceedings to stay VCAT's decision.Reached compromise with applicant to settle dispute.Respondent opposed approval of compromise on basis compromise would increase amount of debt owed by deceased's estate.Sought orders allowing respondent and respondent's children to continue living in family home.Established respondent grounds for opposing approval of settlement misconceived.Established applicant exercised judgment in proper manner, considered interests of respondent and exercised discretion in good faith.Appropriate to allow applicant to enter into settlement agreement with third party company.Application granted.Cases referring to this caseAnnotations: All CasesSort by: Judgment Date (Latest First)AnnotationCase NameCitationsCourtDateSignalFollowedCentro Retail Australia Ltd, Re[2012] VSC 240; BC201203952VSC8/6/2012Cases considered by this caseAnnotations: All Cases Sort by: Judgment Date (Latest First)AnnotationCase NameCitationsCourtDateSignalConsideredExxonmobil Superannuation Plan Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Pty Ltd(2010) 29 VR 356; [2010] VSC 357; BC201006075VSC25/8/2010CitedAnsett Australia Ground Staff Superannuation Plan Pty Ltd v Ansett Australia Ltd(2004) 49 ACSR 1; [2004] FCA 130; BC200400494FCA24/2/2004CitedMcKinnon v Samuels[2000] VSC 393; BC200005745VSC21/9/2000CitedIOOF Australia Trustees Ltd and The Trustee Act 1936(1999) 205 LSJS 98; [1999] SASC 461; BC9907227SASC20/10/1999CitedGreen (decd), Re[1972] VR 848VSC15/5/1972CitedAllen-Meyrick's Will Trusts, Re; Mangnall v Allen-Meyrick[1966] 1 All ER 740; [1966] 1 WLR 499EWHCCh19/11/1965CitedGisborne v Gisborne(1877) 2 App Cas 300; [1874-80] All ER Rep Ext 1698; (1877) 46 LJ Ch 556; (1877) 36 LT 564; (1877) 25 WR 516UKHL17/4/1877CitedBeloved Wilkes Charity, Re(1851) 3 Mac & G 440; (1851) 42 ER 330 - 28/4/1851CitedM'Leod v Drummond(1810) 17 Ves 152 - Legislation considered by this caseLegislation Name & JurisdictionProvisionsSupreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic) r 54.02(2)(c)(i)Page Page 3 of 9 DOCUMENTS: CaseBase CasesGarrett v Yiasemides [2004] NSWSC 828; BC200406197Court: NSWSCJudges: Campbell JJudgment Date: 31/8/2004Catchwords & DigestTrusts -- Trustees -- Powers of investment -- Removal of trusteesApplication to replace trustees and empower new trustees to mortgage particular property.Deceased married twice and appointed two trustees as executors of will.Plaintiff child from second marriage.Father intended plaintiff's interest in estate be used as security for loan in purchase of land and improvements.One trustee bankrupt and other trustee refused to authorise mortgage.Whether trustees should be removed.Whether interests of child served by such investment.Held, allowing the application:(i) The bankrupt trustee was not a proper person to continue as a trustee.(ii) To refuse agreement to the mortgage for over one year amounted to conduct which endangered the trust property and demonstrated a want of proper capacity to exercise trust duties. The relevant trustee should be removed.(iii) It was in the interests of the child to mortgage the relevant land in the proposed way.Practice and procedure -- Costs -- Removal of trustee -- Adversarial litigationOrder for costs.Trustee C previously consented to removal and appointment of replacement trustee.Trustee Y not willing to resign.Court ordered removal of both trustees.Whether trustee Y allowed costs paid out of trust estate.Held: Costs ordered.Trustee Y liable for costs and not allowed costs out of trust estate.Litigation for trustee removal was in substance adversarial litigation, as opposed to administration of trust.Cases referring to this caseAnnotations: All CasesSort by: Judgment Date (Latest First)AnnotationCase NameCitationsCourtDateSignalConsideredEstate of Graham (decd), Re(2009) 105 SASR 95; (2009) 265 LSJS 191; [2009] SASC 278; BC200908138SASC4/9/2009Journal articles referring to this caseArticle NameCitationsSignalLaw of Costs 2ed 2008 (book)ISBN: 9780409325546Cases considered by this caseAnnotations: All Cases Sort by: Judgment Date (Latest First)AnnotationCase NameCitationsCourtDateSignalCitedMurdocca v Murdocca (No 2)[2002] NSWSC 505; BC200203390NSWSC25/6/2002CitedRoberts, Re(1983) 20 NTR 13; (1983) 70 FLR 158NTSC12/4/1983CitedHunter v Hunter[1938] NZLR 520NZCA9/7/1938CitedMiller v Cameron(1936) 54 CLR 572; [1936] ALR 301; (1936) 10 ALJR 35a; [1936] HCA 13; BC3600025HCA29/4/1936CitedNissen v Grunden(1912) 14 CLR 297; (1912) 18 ALR 254; [1912] HCA 35; BC1200054HCA30/5/1912CitedSwanson v Dungey(1892) 25 SALR 87SASC29/9/1892CitedLetterstedt v Broers(1884) 9 App Cas 371UKPC22/3/1884CitedPalairet v Carew(1863) 32 Beav 564; (1863) 55 ER 222 - 18/2/1863CitedAttorney-General v Murdoch(1856) 2 K & J 571; (1856) 69 ER 910 - 7/5/1856Legislation considered by this caseLegislation Name & JurisdictionProvisionsTrustee Act 1925 (NSW) s 14DA, s 6, s 70, s 81, s 82ATrustee Amendment (Discretionary Investments) Act 1997 (NSW) - Page Page 4 of 9 DOCUMENTS: CaseBase CasesWendt v Orr [2004] WASC 28 (S); BC200402497Court: WASCJudges: Johnson JJudgment Date: 3/5/2004Catchwords & DigestPractice and procedure -- Costs -- Executor's costs -- Indemnity from estateApplication by executor for indemnity from estate.Litigation concerning estate commenced by beneficiary.Prior order that first defendant should pay costs of plaintiff and second defendant.Prior decision that should be no indemnity from estate.Distinction between costs of action and other legal costs incurred in management of estate.First defendant executor acted in breach of trust in approach taken to administration of estate.First defendant failed to obtain legal advice or directions from court at early stage.First defendant distributed profits on sale of shares to second defendant.Whether executor should have indemnity from estate for costs.Held: Application dismissed.Executor not entitled to indemnity given breach of trust.Litigation HistoryAnnotations: All Cases Sort by: Judgment Date (Latest First)AnnotationCase NameCitationsCourtDateSignalRelatedOrr v Wendt[2005] WASCA 199; BC200508859WASCA21/10/2005Cases considered by this caseAnnotations: All Cases Sort by: Judgment Date (Latest First)AnnotationCase NameCitationsCourtDateSignalConsideredBeddoe, In re; Downes v Cottam[1893] 1 Ch 547EWCACiv2/12/1892Legislation considered by this caseLegislation Name & JurisdictionProvisionsTrustees Act 1962 (WA) s 65(8), s 92, s 94Page Page 5 of 9 DOCUMENTS: CaseBase CasesMurdocca v Murdocca (No 2) [2002] NSWSC 505; BC200203390Court: NSWSCJudges: Campbell JJudgment Date: 25/6/2002Catchwords & DigestSuccession -- Administration of estates -- Litigation -- CostsProceedings to enforce transfer of specific devise of land.Construction of will needed to decide plaintiff's entitlement to devise.Principles in accord with costs of litigation concerning deceased estates.Present status of approach to costs.Whether costs of proceedings are testamentary expenses.Held: Usual costs orders should follow from adversarial proceedings.Plaintiff ordered to pay one half of costs.Litigation HistoryAnnotations: All Cases Sort by: Judgment Date (Latest First)AnnotationCase NameCitationsCourtDateSignalRelatedMurdocca v Murdocca[2002] NSWSC 159; BC200201192NSWSC27/3/2002Cases referring to this caseAnnotations: All CasesSort by: Judgment Date (Latest First)AnnotationCase NameCitationsCourtDateSignalConsideredNu Line Construction Group Pty Ltd v Fowler (aka Grippaudo)[2012] NSWSC 587; BC201203726NSWSC31/5/2012CitedWaddell v Waddell as Executor of Estate of Waddell (No 4)[2012] NSWSC 287; BC201203385NSWSC28/3/2012CitedStocker v Starr[2012] NSWSC 226; BC201201257NSWSC27/2/2012CitedBE Australia WD Pty Ltd (subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement) v Sutton(2011) 285 ALR 532; (2011) 256 FLR 67; (2011) 86 ACSR 507; [2011] NSWCA 414; BC201110353NSWCA20/12/2011CitedNSW Trustee and Guardian v Hull (No 2)[2011] NSWSC 1361; BC201108919NSWSC10/11/2011CitedScaffidi v Montevento Holdings Pty Ltd[2011] WASCA 146 (S); BC201110748WASCA11/10/2011CitedIreland as Executor of Estate of Late Gordon v Retallack (No 2)[2011] NSWSC 1096; BC201107238NSWSC19/9/2011CitedIreland as Executor of Estate of the late Gordon v Retallack[2011] NSWSC 846; BC201106193NSWSC12/8/2011ConsideredLockrey v Ferris[2011] NSWSC 179; BC201101516NSWSC18/3/2011CitedTrust Co Ltd v Zdilar(2011) 4 ASTLR 379; [2011] QSC 005; BC201100225QSC31/1/2011ConsideredEstate of Forbes (decd) v State of New South Wales[2010] NSWSC 1439; BC201009742NSWSC16/12/2010ConsideredPistorino v Connell[2010] VSC 511; BC201008427VSC12/11/2010ConsideredLahoud v Lahoud[2010] NSWSC 1297; BC201008439NSWSC10/11/2010CitedPacella v Sherborne (No 2)[2010] WASC 186; BC201005202WASC23/7/2010CitedTasmanian Perpetual Trustees Ltd v Bell[2010] TASSC 1; BC201000234TASSC3/2/2010ConsideredTalacko v Talacko[2009] VSC 579; BC200911222VSC11/12/2009CitedWood v Inglis[2009] NSWSC 900; BC200908040NSWSC1/9/2009CitedThompson (decd), Re; Lundstrom v Attorney-General (Vic)[2006] VSC 313; BC200606689VSC30/8/2006CitedJay-O-Bees Pty Ltd (in liq), Re; Rosseau Pty Ltd (in liq) v Jay-O-Bees Pty Ltd (in liq)(2004) 50 ACSR 565; [2004] NSWSC 818; BC200406360NSWSC28/9/2004CitedGarrett v Yiasemides[2004] NSWSC 828; BC200406197NSWSC31/8/2004ConsideredCrawford v McIntosh[2004] NSWSC 180; BC200401193NSWSC16/3/2004CitedGonzales v Claridades(2003) 58 NSWLR 188; [2003] NSWSC 508; BC200302934NSWSC12/6/2003CitedPreston v MD Nikolaidis & Co[2003] NSWSC 72; BC200300477NSWSC17/2/2003CitedFirth v Centrelink (aka the Dept of Social Security (No 2))(2002) 55 NSWLR 494; [2002] NSWSC 850; BC200205434NSWSC11/9/2002Journal articles referring to this caseArticle NameCitationsSignalConstruction of Wills in Australia 2007 (book)ISBN: 9780409320954Cases considered by this caseAnnotations: All Cases Sort by: Judgment Date (Latest First)AnnotationCase NameCitationsCourtDateSignalConsideredMorgan Equipment Company v Rodgers (No2)(1993) 32 NSWLR 467NSWSC25/3/1993ConsideredHagan v Waterhouse(1992) 34 NSWLR 308NSWSC12/2/1992ConsideredHungerfords v Walker(1989) 171 CLR 125; (1989) 84 ALR 119; (1989) 63 ALJR 210; (1989) 20 ATR 36; (1989) Aust Torts Reports 80-230; [1989] HCA 8HCA9/2/1989CitedHermann v Charny[1976] 1 NSWLR 261NSWCA27/4/1976CitedWallersteiner v Moir (No 2); Moir v Wallersteiner (No 2)[1975] QB 373; [1975] 1 All ER 849; [1975] 2 WLR 389EWCACiv29/1/1975CitedPreston's Estate, Re; Raby v Port of Hull Society's Sailors' Orphans' Homes[1951] Ch 878; [1951] 2 All ER 421EWHCCh29/6/1951ConsideredPriestley's Contract, Re[1947] Ch 469; [1947] 1 All ER 716EWHCCh1/4/1947ConsideredPerpetual Trustee Co Ltd v Thomas(1942) 59 WN (NSW) 100NSWSC1/6/1942ConsideredStone, Re; Read v Dubua(1936) 36 SR (NSW) 508; (1936) 53 WN (NSW) 214NSWSC20/10/1936CitedRooke, In re; Jeans v Gatehouse[1933] Ch 970EWHCCh26/5/1933ConsideredO'Brien v Ritchie(1931) 48 WN (NSW) 85NSWSC20/4/1931ConsideredPerpetual Trustee Co Ltd v Paling(1924) 25 SR (NSW) 56; (1924) 42 WN (NSW) 14NSWSC30/12/1924ConsideredMoran v House(1924) 35 CLR 60; [1924] HCA 44HCA6/11/1924CitedLloyd v Frape(1922) 23 SR (NSW) 11; (1922) 39 WN (NSW) 243; (1922) 6 LGR (NSW) 93NSWSC13/10/1922ConsideredMuller v Marriott(1921) 22 SR (NSW) 100; (1921) 38 WN (NSW) 254NSWSC18/11/1921ConsideredWyndham v Mackenzie(1918) 25 CLR 172; (1918) 24 ALR 291; [1918] HCA 46; BC1800024HCA23/8/1918Not FollowedRobertson v Graham(1917) 17 SR (NSW) 676; (1917) 34 WN (NSW) 248NSWSC13/11/1917CitedHall-Dare, Re; Le Marchant v Warner[1916] 1 Ch 272EWHCCh20/1/1916CitedAllen v Attorney-General(1914) 15 SR (NSW) 41; (1914) 32 WN (NSW) 1NSWSC16/10/1914ConsideredCunningham, In re; Sproule v Quested(1914) 31 WN (NSW) 44NSWSC26/3/1914ConsideredHalston, In re; Ewen v Halston[1912] 1 Ch 435EWHCCh23/1/1912ConsideredWhite, In re; White v White(1910) 10 SR (NSW) 304; (1910) 27 WN (NSW) 75NSWSC2/3/1910ConsideredBuckton, Re[1907] 2 Ch 406EWHCCh10/7/1907ConsideredBetts; In re Doughty v Walker[1907] 2 Ch 149EWHCCh18/4/1907ConsideredMetcalfe v O'Kennedy(1904) 4 SR (NSW) 633; (1904) 21 WN (NSW) 240aNSWSC17/11/1904CitedDrax, In re; Savile v Drax[1903] 1 Ch 781EWCACiv19/3/1903ConsideredJones, In re; Elgood v Kinderley; Elgood v Jones[1902] 1 Ch 92EWHCCh5/11/1901CitedGroom, In re; Booty v Groom[1897] 2 Ch 407EWHCCh13/7/1897ConsideredPatching v Barnett[1907] 2 Ch 154; (1881) 51 LJ Ch 74EWCACiv28/6/1881ConsideredBallard v Shutt(1880) 15 Ch D 122EWHCCh13/7/1880ConsideredSharp v Lush(1879) 10 Ch D 468EWHCCh13/1/1879CitedHigstrim v Ray(1895) 16 LR (NSW) Eq 1 - Legislation considered by this caseLegislation Name & JurisdictionProvisionsEquity Act 1901 (NSW) s 11Land Transfer Act 1897 (UK) s 2(3)Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) Pt 49 r 9, Pt 52A r 22, Pt 68 r 2(2), s 76, s 94Trustee Act 1925 (NSW) s 93(3)Wills, Probate and Administration Act 1898 (NSW) s 46C, s 84APage Page 6 of 9 DOCUMENTS: CaseBase CasesHarris v Bennett (No 2) [2002] VSC 163; BC200202244Court: VSCJudges: McDonald JJudgment Date: 9/5/2002Catchwords & DigestPractice and procedure -- Costs -- Application for costs -- Infant plaintiff represented by litigation guardianApplication for costs on behalf of infant plaintiff.Proceedings formerly dismissed were for provision out of estate of deceased for whom defendants are executors.Large estate.Litigation guardian impecunious.Plaintiff child with special needs.Whether appropriate to reserve costs of actions relating to summary dismissal to trial judge.Whether circumstances warranting departure from normal order as to costs.Whether infant plaintiff entitled to have costs taxed on solicitor and client basis.Held: Defendants to pay infant plaintiff's costs, taxed on party and party basis.Not reasonable to say award of costs at this stage will affect exercise of costs discretion by trial judge.Normal order as to costs appropriate.Proceedings not within any category where solicitor and client basis justified, despite claims of ulterior motives for dismissal application.Litigation HistoryAnnotations: All Cases Sort by: Judgment Date (Latest First)AnnotationCase NameCitationsCourtDateSignalRelatedHarris v Bennett (No 1)(2002) 8 VR 411; [2002] VSC 139; BC200202159VSC15/4/2002Cases referring to this caseAnnotations: All CasesSort by: Judgment Date (Latest First)AnnotationCase NameCitationsCourtDateSignalConsideredBoard of Examiners v XY[2006] VSCA 190; BC200607419VSCA20/9/2006Cases considered by this caseAnnotations: All Cases Sort by: Judgment Date (Latest First)AnnotationCase NameCitationsCourtDateSignalCitedParkesinclair Chemicals (Aust) Pty Ltd v Asia Associates Inc[2000] VSC 336; BC200005192VSC24/8/2000AppliedCzerwinski v Syrena Royal Pty Ltd[2000] VSC 135; BC200002285VSC12/4/2000ConsideredSpencer v Dowling & KL Dowling & Co (a firm)[1997] 2 VR 127; (1996) EOC 92-851; BC9603333VSCA26/7/1996AppliedColgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd(1993) 46 FCR 225; (1993) 118 ALR 248; (1993) 28 IPR 561; BC9305213FCA10/11/1993CitedBlackall v Trotter (No2)[1969] VR 946VSC8/7/1969CitedDehnert v Perpetual Executors & Trustees Association of Australia Ltd(1954) 91 CLR 177; [1954] ALR 837; (1954) 28 ALJR 355; BC5400490HCA14/9/1954Legislation considered by this caseLegislation Name & JurisdictionProvisionsSupreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 1996 (Vic) r 63.31, r 63.32Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) s 24(1)Page Page 7 of 9 DOCUMENTS: Australian Current Law Reporter/2004/Issue 10/325 -- PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE/WESTERN AUSTRALIA/[325 WA 97] Wendt v Orr[325 WA 97]Wendt v Orr -- Supreme Court, WA -- Johnson J -- 3 May 2004 [2004] WASC 28 (S), BC200402497, 13 pages Costs -- Executor's costs -- Indemnity from estate -- Application by executor for indemnity from estate -- Litigation concerning estate commenced by beneficiary -- Prior order that first defendant should pay costs of plaintiff and second defendant -- Prior decision that there should be no indemnity from estate -- Distinction between costs of action and other legal costs incurred in management of estate -- First defendant executor acted in breach of trust in approach taken to administration of estate -- First defendant failed to obtain legal advice or directions from court at early stage -- First defendant distributed profits on sale of shares to second defendant -- Whether executor should have indemnity from estate for costs -- Executor not entitled to indemnity given breach of trust -- Application dismissed(WA) Trustees Act 1962 ss 65(8), 92, 94.Page Page 8 of 9 DOCUMENTS: Australian Current Law Reporter/2002/Issue 8/395 -- SUCCESSION/NEW SOUTH WALES/[395 NSW 44] Murdocca v Murdocca (No 2)[395 NSW 44]Murdocca v Murdocca (No 2) -- Supreme Court, NSW -- Campbell J -- 25 Jun 2002 [2002] NSWSC 505, BC200203390, 24 pages Administration of estates -- Litigation -- Costs -- Proceedings to enforce transfer of specific devise of land -- Construction of will needed to decide plaintiff's entitlement to devise -- Principles in accord with costs of litigation concerning deceased estates -- Present status of approach to costs -- Whether costs of proceedings are testamentary expenses -- Usual costs orders should follow from adversarial proceedings -- Plaintiff ordered to pay one half of costs(NSW) Equity Act 1901 s 11.(NSW) Supreme Court Act 1970 ss 76, 94.(NSW) Supreme Court Rules 1970 Pt 49 r 9, Pt 52A r 22, Pt 68 r 2.(NSW) Trustee Act 1925 s 93(3).(NSW) Wills, Probate and Administration Act 1898 ss 46C, 84A.(UK) Land Transfer Act 1897 s 2(3).Page Page 9 of 9 DOCUMENTS: Australian Current Law Reporter/2002/Issue 6/325 -- PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE/VICTORIA/[325 VIC 63] Harris v Bennett (No 2)[325 VIC 63]Harris v Bennett (No 2) -- Supreme Court, Vic -- McDonald J -- 9 May 2002 [2002] VSC 163, BC200202244, 8 pages Costs -- Application for costs -- Infant plaintiff represented by litigation guardian -- Proceedings formerly dismissed were for provision out of estate -- Defendants executors -- Large estate -- Litigation guardian impecunious -- Plaintiff child with special needs -- Appropriateness of reserving costs of dismissal-related actions to trial judge -- Whether departure from normal costs order warranted -- Whether infant plaintiff entitled to have costs taxed on solicitor and client basis -- Defendants to pay infant plaintiff's costs, taxed on party and party basisCzerwinski v Syrena Royal Pty Ltd [2000] VSC 135; BC200002285; [2000] ACL Rep 325 VIC 109; Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225; (1993) 118 ALR 248; (1993) 28 IPR 561, applied.(VIC) Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 1996 rr 63.31, 63.32.---- End of Request ----Download Request: Tagged Documents: 1-9Time Of Request: Friday, October 26, 2012 12:36:59