Barratt v Foran - [2013] VSC 420

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION
PROBATE LIST

S PRB 2011 13287

IN THE MATTER of the Will and Estate of PAUL MASON HODGES, deceased

JOANNE MAREE BARRATT	Plaintiff
v
CERIDWEN MARY FORAN	First Defendant
EVAN MORRIS REES	Second Defendant

---

JUDGE:	McMILLAN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	26 July 2013
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	22 August 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Barratt v Foran
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 420

---

WILLS AND ESTATES – Refusal by the plaintiff to comply with Terms of Settlement executed by the parties – Plaintiff alleges that the defendants misappropriated certain assets of the deceased’s estate – Application by the defendants to enforce the terms – Whether the terms should be enforced by the Court

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr R Cook	Dunemann Sutherland Pty
For the Defendants	Mr S Newton	Wills and Probate Victoria, Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

This proceeding was commenced because the plaintiff and the defendants disagreed as to whether the will of Paul Mason Hodges (‘the deceased’) made in 1980 (‘the penultimate will’) or an informal will purported to be made in 2007 (‘the informal will’), should be admitted to probate and thus govern the distribution of the estate of the deceased.

On 14 September 2012, the plaintiff and the defendants executed Terms of Settlement (‘the Terms of Settlement’) whereby the parties agreed, among other things, that Letters of Administration with the informal will annexed would be granted to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff would pay the defendants the sum of $710 000 out of the estate within six months of the grant.

Letters of Administration with the informal will annexed were granted to the plaintiff on 15 November 2012. Under the Terms of Settlement, the payment of $710 000 was due to be paid by the plaintiff on 16 May 2013. The plaintiff has failed to pay this amount.

The plaintiff’s reason for her failure to pay the amount is that the defendants have misappropriated a number of valuable items which belonged to the deceased. She alleges that the defendants took these items from the home of the deceased in Brighton East.[1]
[1]Affidavit of Joanne Maree Barratt sworn 23 July 2012, [11].

By summons, the defendants seek orders that the plaintiff comply with the Terms of Settlement.

The plaintiff submits that the Court should dismiss the defendants’ application and order that the parties attend another mediation, and, if that fails, order that the matter be set down for trial.

Background

After the death of the deceased on 2 September 2011, the defendants secured the deceased’s home pursuant to the penultimate will, which they had believed was the deceased’s last will. The first defendant deposed, and I accept, that upon entering the home, they found that:

The deceased had been living in very squalid and unclean conditions. We started to clean out the property and disposed of rubbish. Photographs of the house were taken before…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Barratt v Foran

Details

AGLC: Barratt v Foran [2013] VSC 420
Case: [2013] VSC 420
Decision Date: 22 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Barratt v Foran involved a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants over the terms of a settlement agreement executed between the parties. The settlement related to the estate of a deceased individual, and the plaintiff, Barratt, claimed that the defendants had misappropriated certain assets from the estate. The defendants sought to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement, arguing that the plaintiff's refusal to comply with those terms was in breach of the agreement. The case was heard in the relevant court, which was tasked with determining whether the terms of the settlement should be enforced.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the settlement agreement should be enforced against the plaintiff. This required the court to consider the circumstances surrounding the execution of the agreement, the obligations of each party under the terms, and the extent to which the plaintiff had fulfilled their obligations. Additionally, the court had to assess the merits of the plaintiff's allegations regarding the misappropriation of assets and determine whether these allegations, if proven, would justify the plaintiff's refusal to comply with the terms of the settlement.

The court found that the settlement agreement was valid and binding on both parties. It noted that the terms of the agreement were clear and unambiguous, and that the plaintiff had willingly executed the agreement. The court also determined that the plaintiff's allegations of misappropriation were not substantiated and did not provide a valid basis for refusing to comply with the terms of the settlement. Consequently, the court ordered the plaintiff to adhere to the terms of the agreement, finding that enforcement was necessary to uphold the integrity of the settlement process. The court's decision was based on the principle that parties should be held to the agreements they have entered into, provided those agreements are lawful and equitable.

Orders