Legal Research
Cases
Carr v Larussa

Carr v Larussa

Case [2016] WASC 13 20 January 2016

Executors and Trustees

Conflict of Interest

Valid Will

Trusts & Equity

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: CARR -v- LARUSSA [2016] WASC 13

CORAM: ACTING MASTER GETHING

HEARD: 30 OCTOBER & 22 DECEMBER 2015

DELIVERED : 20 JANUARY 2016

FILE NO/S: CIV 2111 of 2015

MATTER :The Estate of Giuseppe Larussa of Gracefield Park Farms, Beermullah West Road, Beermullah, Western Australia (Dec)
Section 92 of the Trustees Act 1962 (WA)

BETWEEN: ANNA CARR
Plaintiff
AND
TONY LARUSSA
Defendant

Catchwords:

Executors and trustees - Private advice application - Direction sought as to whether an administrator is justified in defending claims that there was a valid will and that she is acting under a conflict of interest

Legislation:

Trustees Act 1962 (WA), s 92

Result:

Direction given

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr S M Standing
Defendant: Mr F J Mestichelli

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Friedman Lurie Singh & D'Angelo
Defendant: Dunns Corporate Counsel

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

Bates v Messner (1967) 67 SR (NSW) 187
Bell v Crewes [2011] NSWSC 1159
Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336
Browne v Matthew Jaime Bassett‑Scarff as executor of the will of the late Dawn Lorraine Phillips [2015] WASC 422
Carr v Larussa Pastoral Holdings Pty Ltd [2015] WASC 300
Catherine Marie Smith as administrator of the estate of the late Keith Raymond Seaman v Seaman [2015] WASC 420
Dalrymple v Melville (1932) 32 SR (NSW) 596
Dijkhuijs v Barclay (1988) 13 NSWLR 639
Fast v Rockman [2013] VSC 18
Fysh v Coote [2000] VSCA 150
Hansen v Hansen [2013] WASC 268
Hart v Hart [2010] WASC 329
Hatsatouris v Hatsatouris [2001] NSWCA 408
La Russa v Carr [2014] WASC 497
Larussa Pastoral Holdings Pty Ltd v Carr [2015] WASCA 194
Macedonian Orthodox Community Church St Petka Inc v His Eminence Petar The Diocesan Bishop of Macedonian Orthodox Diocese of Australia and New Zealand [2008] HCA 42; (2008) 237 CLR 66
Mitchell v Mitchell [2010] WASC 174
Oreski v Ikac [2008] WASCA 220
Phelan & Phelan v Booth (1941) 43 WALR 60
Plan B Trustees Ltd v Parker [No 2] [2013] WASC 216
Porteous v Rinehart (1998) 19 WAR 495
Powell v Dinwoodie [2012] WASC 139
Re Application of Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd [2003] NSWSC 1185
Re Application of Scali [2010] NSWSC 1254
Re Atkinson (Dec) [1971] VR 612
Re Estate of Anastasios Keriacules Challis (Dec) [2010] WASC 333
Re Young; Hobbs v Christchurch City [1968] NZLR 1178
Rowe v Storer [2013] VSC 385
Stanley v Stanley [2000] NSWSC 1133
Tsaknis as Executor and Trustee of the Estate of Geoffrey Douglas Roland Lilburne (Dec) v Lilburne [2010] WASC 152
Vasiljev v Public Trustee [1974] 2 NSWLR 497
Wales v Wales [2013] VSC 569
Wales v Wales [No 3] [2015] VSC 151
Wood (As Co‑Executor and Trustee of the Will of the Deceased) v Wood [No 4] [2014] WASC 393

ACTING MASTER GETHING: Giuseppe Larussa died on or about 28 November 2013.[1] He was survived by his widow Maria Angelina Gennarina Larussa, his son Tony Larussa…

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 Carr v Larussa

Details

AGLC: Carr v Larussa [2016] WASC 13
Case: [2016] WASC 13
Decision Date: 20 JANUARY 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Carr v Larussa, the plaintiff sought directions from the court regarding the defence of claims brought against the defendant, who is the administrator of an estate. The plaintiff, who is a beneficiary under a will, alleges that the administrator is acting under a conflict of interest and that there was no valid will. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issue was whether the administrator could lawfully defend claims of conflict of interest and the validity of the will. This required the court to consider the applicable statutory framework and common law principles concerning the duties and obligations of an administrator. The court needed to determine whether the administrator's actions in defending the claims were within the scope of her authority and in the best interests of the estate.

The court held that the administrator had a duty to act in the best interests of the estate and could defend claims where there was a reasonable prospect of success. The court further found that the administrator's actions were justified, as there were valid grounds to contest the claims brought by the plaintiff. The court emphasised the importance of the administrator acting within the bounds of her authority and in accordance with her statutory and common law obligations.

As a result, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application for directions, finding that the administrator was justified in defending the claims. The court did not make any orders regarding the substantive claims, as the matter was still before the court. The outcome of the case highlights the importance of administrators acting within their legal authority and in the best interests of the estate when defending claims against them.

Orders