Angliss v Urquhart

The case of *Angliss v Urquhart* involved a dispute concerning the validity of purported revocations of appointments held by the plaintiffs as guardian and attorney for the third defendant. The plaintiffs sought declarations that their appointments remained in force and orders for the management of the third defendant's estate under the *Protected Estates Act*. The third defendant, who was residing in Queensland, argued that the proceedings were vexatious and oppressive, and that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The primary judge struck out claims for the avoidance of various instruments and stayed a claim for an account, but allowed the claims for declarations regarding the appointments and the application for estate management to proceed.

The central legal issues before the appellate court were whether the primary judge erred in his findings regarding the plaintiffs' standing, the utility of the declarations sought, the jurisdiction of the New South Wales court given the third defendant's location in Queensland, and the oppressiveness of the proceedings. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the primary judge correctly determined that there was utility in the plaintiffs knowing the status of their appointments and whether the court retained jurisdiction to make management orders despite the third defendant and most of his assets being in Queensland. The grounds of appeal also raised questions about the primary judge's assessment of the evidence concerning the third defendant's well-being and capacity, and whether the proceedings were vexatious or oppressive.

The appellate court upheld the appeal, making significant orders regarding the progression of the case. It directed a separate hearing on the issue of whether the purported revocations by the third defendant were void, to be decided in advance of all other issues. The court stipulated that if the plaintiffs succeeded on this issue, the further progress of the matter would be subject to the Supreme Court's directions. Conversely, if the plaintiffs wholly failed on this issue, the proceedings would be permanently stayed. The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the third defendant's costs of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal itself.