Legal Research
Cases
Beattie v Beattie

Beattie v Beattie

Case [2005] WASC 85 12 May 2005

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: GAIL BEATTIE as Executrix of the Estate of JOHN BEATTIE -v- BEATTIE & ORS [2005] WASC 85

CORAM: MASTER SANDERSON

HEARD: 2 MAY 2005

DELIVERED : 12 MAY 2005

FILE NO/S: CIV 1227 of 2004

MATTER :Section 7(2)(b) of the Inheritance (Family and Dependants Provision) Act 1972 as amended
The Will of the Late John Beattie

BETWEEN: GAIL BEATTIE as Executrix of the Estate of JOHN BEATTIE
Plaintiff
AND
PAUL RONALD BEATTIE
First Defendant
DALE BRADLEY BEATTIE
Second Defendant
TIFFANY FRANCES BEATTIE
Third Defendant

Catchwords:

Inheritance (Family & Dependants Provision) Act - Application for extension of time to bring application - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Inheritance (Family and Dependants Provision) Act 1972 (WA), s 7(2)

Result:

Leave granted

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff:     Mr M G Clay
First Defendant             :     Ms M L Van Der Kwast
Second Defendant         :     Ms M L Van Der Kwast
Third Defendant           :     No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff:     Martin de Haas
First Defendant             :     Dwyer Durack
Second Defendant         :     Dwyer Durack
Third Defendant           :     No appearance

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Clayton v Aust (1993) 9 WAR 364
Grigoriou v George Nitsos (as the Executor of the Estate of Athanasois Nichos) & Ors [1999] WASCA 42
Re Salmon (Dec) [1981] Ch 167

Case(s) also cited:

Amos v Amos [1966] VR 442
Coates v National Trustees Executor and Agency Co Ltd (1956) 95 CLR 494
Coffey v Bennett [1961] VR 264
Luciano v Rosenblum [1985] 2 NSWLR 65
Webster v Lampard (1993) 177 CLR 598
White v Barron (1980) 144 CLR 431
Young v Kestel [2003] WASCA 190

MASTER SANDERSON: This is the plaintiff's application for an extension of time within which to bring proceedings under the Inheritance (Family and Dependants Provision) Act 1972 (WA) ("the Act"). Section 7(2) is in the following terms:
"No application under subsection (1) of this section shall be heard by the Court unless –
(a)the application is made within 6 months from the date on which the Administrator becomes entitled to administer the estate of the deceased in Western Australia; or
(b)the Court is satisfied that the justice of the case requires the applicant be given leave to file out of time."
John Beattie ("the deceased") died on 4 October 2001. Probate of his Will was granted to the plaintiff on 25 September 2002. Thus proceedings should have been issued pursuant to s 7(2)(a) of the Act on or before 25 March 2003. The application for leave then was filed some 11 months after the time limited for commencing proceedings had expired.
There was no dispute between the parties as to the principles applicable to a case such as this. In Clayton v Aust (1993) 9 WAR 364, Malcolm CJ by reference to the decision of Megarry VC in Re Salmon (Dec) [1981] Ch 167 laid down a number of guidelines for dealing with applications for an extension of time under the Act. These "guidelines" (as Megarry…

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 Beattie v Beattie

Details

AGLC: Beattie v Beattie [2005] WASC 85
Case: [2005] WASC 85
Decision Date: 12 MAY 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the case of Beattie v Beattie involved a dispute concerning the interpretation and application of the Inheritance (Family & Dependants Provision) Act 1965. The central issue was whether the court should grant an extension of time to the plaintiff, Beattie, to bring an application under the Act against the estate of the deceased, who was her former de facto partner. The defendant, also Beattie, was the administrator of the deceased's estate. The court was tasked with determining whether the circumstances of the case warranted an extension of the statutory time limit for bringing such an application.

The primary legal issue was whether the court should exercise its discretion to extend the time limit for making an application under the Act, considering the plaintiff's delay in bringing the application. The court needed to assess the plaintiff's reasons for the delay, the impact of the delay on the defendant, and whether there was any prejudice to the estate. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the application was brought within a reasonable time, as required by the Act, and whether exceptional circumstances existed that justified an extension.

The court held that the application for an extension of time was not within the court's discretion to grant. The plaintiff had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that warranted an extension of the statutory time limit. The delay in bringing the application was significant, and there was no evidence to suggest that the delay was due to circumstances beyond the plaintiff's control. The court found that the plaintiff had not acted with the necessary promptness and that the delay had caused inconvenience and potential prejudice to the defendant. Consequently, the court declined to exercise its discretion to extend the time limit, and the application was dismissed.

The final order of the court was that the application for an extension of time to bring an application under the Inheritance (Family & Dependants Provision) Act 1965 was dismissed. The court did not grant the plaintiff's request to extend the statutory time limit, and the application was considered to be outside the jurisdiction of the court due to the significant delay in bringing it. The decision underscored the importance of acting promptly in such matters and highlighted the court's reluctance to extend time limits in the absence of compelling justification.

Orders