Legal Research
Cases
Boyd v State Trustees Ltd

Boyd v State Trustees Ltd

Case [2008] VSC 18 11 February 2008

Testator Family Maintenance

Section 91 Administration and Probate Act 1958

Succession Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

No. 8079 of 2005

RUSSELL WILLIAM BOYD	Plaintiff
v
STATE TRUSTEES LIMITED (WHO IS SUED AS THE EXECUTOR OF THE WILL AND ESTATE OF WILLIAM PETER BOYD (DECEASED))	Defendant

AND

No 8536 of 2006

ELIZABETH HELEN BOYD	Plaintiff
v
STATE TRUSTEES LIMITED (WHO IS SUED A S THE EXECUTOR OF THE WILL AND ESTATE OF WILLIAM PETER BOYD (DECEASED))	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	ROBSON J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27 November 2007
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	11 February 2008
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Boyd v State Trustees Limited.
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 18

---

TESTATOR FAMILY MAINTENANCE – Application by adult son – Application by disabled daughter – Moral obligation giving rise to responsibility under s 91(4) to make provision for a person – Section 91 Administration and Probate Act 1958.

Blair v Blair [2004] VSCA 149.
Bosch v Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd [1938] AC 463.
Collicoat v McMillan [1999] 3VR 803.
Coombes v Ward [2004] VSCA 51.
Grey v Harrison [1997] 2 VR 359.
Lee v Hearn [2005] VSCA 127.
MacEwan Shaw v Shaw [2003] VSC 318.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff Russell Boyd	Mr R T A Waddell	Bruce M Cook & Associates.
For the Plaintiff Elizabeth Boyd	Mr J J Isles	FTL Judge & Papaleo Pty Ltd.
For the Defendant in both proceedings	Mr W F Gillies	Legal Department, State Trustees Ltd.

---

HIS HONOUR:

I have before me two originating motions, in each case seeking provision for the proper maintenance and support of the respective plaintiff out of the estate of William Peter Boyd deceased, pursuant to Part IV of the Administration and Probate Act 1958 (“the Act”). The plaintiffs Russell and Elizabeth Boyd are both children of the deceased.

In addition, Elizabeth Boyd seeks an order pursuant to s 99 of the Act that the time for bringing this application be extended by the court.

The two applications were heard together and although no formal order was made to this effect the parties treated the evidence in one as evidence in the other.

Background facts

The deceased died on 3 November 2004. His wife predeceased him. He is survived by three children: Elizabeth Helen Boyd 57 years; Russell William Boyd 56 years with two children, both adults; and Stuart Mark Boyd with three children of school age.

The inventory

The estate consists of a residential property at 63 Draper Street Ormond East and a small amount of cash. The liquid assets of the estate are insufficient to meet the costs of administration and this litigation.

The will

In substance the will left Elizabeth a life interest in the residential property which had been the family home. After her death the house is to pass equally to her two brothers if living, otherwise their children absolutely. The residue of the estate was to be divided into three parts. The income…

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 Boyd v State Trustees Ltd

Details

AGLC: Boyd v State Trustees Ltd [2008] VSC 18
Case: [2008] VSC 18
Decision Date: 11 February 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Boyd v State Trustees Ltd involved a dispute over the estate of a deceased person, with an application made by the deceased's adult son and disabled daughter seeking maintenance from the estate under section 91(4) of the Administration and Probate Act 1958. The Supreme Court of Victoria was tasked with determining whether the moral obligation to provide maintenance for family members could be enforced in this context.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the moral obligation to provide maintenance for family members could be enforced under the Act, and specifically whether the son and daughter had a legitimate claim against the estate. The court needed to examine the relevant case law to determine the scope and application of section 91(4) and whether the applications by the son and daughter were valid.

In delivering the judgment, the court noted that the statutory provision in question allowed for the making of provision for family members, including adult children, in circumstances where there is a moral obligation to do so. The court examined precedent cases such as Bosch v Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd and Blair v Blair, which had established that the mere existence of a moral obligation was not sufficient to ground a claim, but rather that there must be a demonstrable need and a failure to provide for the claimant in a will. The court also considered Coombes v Ward and Grey v Harrison, which highlighted the importance of the testator's intentions and the need to balance the interests of different family members. Ultimately, the court found that the applications by the son and daughter were not supported by sufficient evidence to establish a failure to provide for them in the will and that there was no clear moral obligation that the estate was required to fulfill.

The court dismissed the applications by the son and daughter, finding that there was no basis on which to order the estate to provide maintenance under section 91(4) of the Act. The final orders reflected this decision, with no provision made for either the son or the daughter from the estate.

Orders