Legal Research
Cases
Butcher v Craig

Butcher v Craig

Case [2010] WASCA 92 17 May 2010

Res Judicata

Competing Claims

Statutory Interpretation

Succession Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)

CITATION: BUTCHER -v- CRAIG [2010] WASCA 92

CORAM: PULLIN JA
NEWNES JA
MURPHY J

HEARD: 15 MARCH 2010

DELIVERED : 17 MAY 2010

FILE NO/S: CACV 76 of 2009

BETWEEN: RONALD JAMES BUTCHER
Appellant
AND
DELYS JOAN CRAIG as Executor of the Estate of Elsja Henrietta Charlotte BUTCHER (DEC)
First Respondent
DELYS JOAN CRAIG
Second Respondent
TRIGG ALEXANDER CRAIG
Third Respondent
ELSJA ELIZABETH CRAIG
Fourth Respondent
MANSON BASIL CRAIG
Fifth Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MASTER SANDERSON
Citation  :BUTCHER -v- CRAIG [2009] WASC 164
File No  :CIV 1886 of 2006

Catchwords:

Succession law - Application under Inheritance (Family and Dependants Provision) Act 1972 (WA) - Application refused by master - Competing claims of children and grandchildren - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Inheritance (Family and Dependants Provision) Act 1972 (WA), s 6(1)

Result:

Appeal allowed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant:     Mr L A Tsaknis
First Respondent           :     No appearance
Second Respondent      :     Mr A Metaxas
Third Respondent          :     Mr A Metaxas
Fourth Respondent        :     Mr A Metaxas
Fifth Respondent           :     Mr A Metaxas

Solicitors:

Appellant:     Minter Ellison
First Respondent           :     No appearance
Second Respondent      :     Metaxas & Hager
Third Respondent          :     Metaxas & Hager
Fourth Respondent        :     Metaxas & Hager
Fifth Respondent           :     Metaxas & Hager

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

Andre v Perpetual Trustees WA Ltd [2009] WASCA 14
Bondelmonte v Blanckensee [1989] WAR 305
Butcher v Craig [2009] WASC 164
Pogorelic v Banovich [2007] WASC 45
Singer v Berghouse (No 2) [1994] HCA 40; (2004) 181 CR 201
Vigolo v Bostin [2005] HCA 11; (2005) 221 CLR 191

REASONS OF THE COURT: The appellant brought an application under the Inheritance (Family and Dependants Provision) Act 1972 (WA) (the Act). The application was dismissed by the master. The appellant appeals against that decision.
The following is a recital of the facts found by the master in Butcher v Craig [2009] WASC 164:
The plaintiff is the son of the late Elsja Henrietta Charlotte Butcher (the deceased). The deceased died on 15 December 2005 aged 93. Her last will was made on 6 May 2003. The second defendant is the daughter of the deceased. The third, fourth and fifth defendants are all children of the second defendant.
By her will the deceased left a net estate of approximately $1,261,818.32. The principal asset of her estate was, and is, a house at Busselton. According to the statement of assets and liabilities sworn 4 October 2006, at the date of the deceased's death this house was valued at $1.2 million. All parties accepted that, for the purposes of this application, the value put on the house in the statement of assets and liabilities was to be taken as the value of the house as at the date of death of the deceased.
The statement of assets and liabilities showed that in addition…

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 Butcher v Craig

Details

AGLC: Butcher v Craig [2010] WASCA 92
Case: [2010] WASCA 92
Decision Date: 17 MAY 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Butcher v Craig, the dispute revolved around the succession of the estate of the deceased, John Butcher. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Western Australia, where the master had previously dismissed an application under the Inheritance (Family and Dependants Provision) Act 1972 (WA). The deceased left a will, but the application was brought by the grandchildren of John Butcher, contesting the validity of the will and seeking an alternative distribution of the estate. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the master was correct in refusing the application and upholding the validity of the will.

The court considered the arguments presented by the grandchildren, who contended that the will did not adequately provide for their interests, and that the provisions of the Inheritance Act should apply. The grandchildren argued that the deceased's failure to adequately provide for them warranted an intervention under the Act. The court needed to decide if the master's refusal to grant the application was justified, considering the competing claims of the children and grandchildren. The court also examined the circumstances surrounding the making of the will and the relationship between the deceased and his grandchildren.

The court held that the master was correct in refusing the application. It found that the deceased had adequately provided for his grandchildren through bequests to his children, who were in turn responsible for distributing those benefits to their children. The court was satisfied that the deceased had considered the needs of his grandchildren and had made provisions for them through his children. The evidence did not support the contention that the deceased's failure to provide directly to the grandchildren was due to any incapacity or undue influence. Therefore, the court concluded that the master's decision was correct, and the application was properly dismissed. As a result, the estate was to be distributed in accordance with the terms of the will.

Orders