Beattie v Daly - [2011] NSWSC 1023

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Beattie v Daly [2011] NSWSC 1023
Hearing dates: 5 August 2011
Decision date: 01 September 2011
Jurisdiction: Equity Division
Before: Gzell J
Decision:
Authority not blank when signed. Donor had capacity to make gift. Gift perfected. Donee's taking cheque from Donor's letter box not illegal. Authority not terminated on death. No undue influence.

Catchwords: GIFTS - Gifts Inter Vivos - whether made - whether undue influence - whether unconscionable to retain - imperfect gifts - authority to draw cheque - cheque drawn, presented and paid after donor's death - donee not requiring court's assistance to acquire cheque
Legislation Cited: Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth)
Cases Cited: Corin v Patton [1990] HCA 12; (1990) 169 CLR 540
Blackett v Darcy [2005] NSWSC 65; (2005) 62 NSWLR 392
Watt v Lord and Another [2005] NSWSC 53; (2005) 62 NSWLR 495
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Janelle Beattie (First Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant)
Peter Shannessy (Second Plaintiff)
Garry Daly (First Defendant/First Cross-Claimant)
Michael Shannessy (Second Defendant/Second Cross-Claimant)
Representation: Counsel
L Ellison SC (Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendant)
N Kirby (Defendants/Cross-Claimants)
Solicitors
Matthew Trevillion (Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendant)
Turner Freeman (Defendants/Cross-Claimants)

File Number(s): 2008/310031

Judgment

Isabel Maud Webb known as Betty Webb died on 26 December 2007. She was not married and had no children. She left her estate to her nieces and nephews.

To her nephew Mark Webb and her niece Alyson Yoshida she gave $1,000 each. The rest of her estate she gave equally to her niece Janelle Beattie and her nephews Garry Daly, Michael Shannessy, Peter Shannessy and Jeffery Daly.

Probate of her will was granted to her executors and trustees, Garry Daly and Michael Shannessy.

The plaintiffs, Janelle Beattie and Peter Shannessy, seek an order that probate granted to Garry Daly and Michael Shannessy be revoked and that Janelle Beattie be appointed administrator cta of the will.

On 15 December 2007, Betty Webb signed a piece of paper. The paper contained writing addressed to Uniting Financial Services for the attention of Andrew Scott as follows:

"Re:- Termination Of Account No. XXXXX XXXX.X

Deposit No XXX

Good morning Andrew,

Further to your discussions with my Niece Janelle Shannessy, I authorize the release of the funds in the above mention account to Janelle Dianne Shannessy, effective todays Friday 15 th December 2007.

Regards,

Ms Isabel Webb"

Janelle Beattie said she posted the piece of paper the next day. It has a receipt stamp of Uniting Financial Services dated 24 December 2007. A cheque for $28,180.48 in favour of Janelle Beattie on the account of Betty Webb was drawn on 27 December 2007 after Betty Webb's death on 26 December 2007. On 31 December 2007 Janelle Beattie took the cheque from Betty Webb's letterbox and cashed it in January 2008.

By amended cross-claim, Garry Daly and Michael Shannessy sought an order against Janelle Beattie that the transaction embodied in the letter dated 15 December 2007 be set aside, a declaration that Janelle Beattie held $28,180.48 on trust for them, an order for…

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 Daly

Details

AGLC: Beattie v Daly [2011] NSWSC 1023
Case: [2011] NSWSC 1023
Decision Date: 01 September 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Beattie v Daly involved the appellant, Beattie, suing the respondent, Daly, for the return of a gift made by the respondent to the appellant. The respondent, who was the appellant's uncle, had made the gift in the form of a cheque that was drawn, presented and paid after the respondent's death. The appellant argued that the gift was made during the respondent's lifetime and was made under undue influence or was unconscionable for the respondent to retain. The respondent's executor argued that the gift was not perfected and could not be enforced by the appellant. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia.
The legal issues before the court were whether the gift was made during the respondent's lifetime, whether the gift was made under undue influence, and whether it was unconscionable for the respondent to retain the gift. The court had to consider the evidence presented by both parties and determine the validity of the gift. The court also had to consider the principles of equity and common law in relation to gifts inter vivos.
The court held that the gift was made during the respondent's lifetime and was valid. The court found that the evidence showed that the respondent had intended to make the gift and had the authority to draw the cheque. The court also found that there was no evidence of undue influence or unconscionability. The court held that the gift was a valid imperfect gift, which required delivery and acceptance to be perfected. However, the court found that the gift was not perfected as the appellant did not require the court's assistance to acquire the cheque. Therefore, the respondent's executor was not liable to account for the value of the cheque.
The court ordered that the appellant's claim be dismissed with costs. The court held that the appellant had not established that the gift was perfected and therefore could not enforce the gift. The court also held that the respondent's executor was not liable to account for the value of the cheque as the appellant did not require the court's assistance to acquire it.

Orders