Davidson v Cameron

Case [2015] QSC 294

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Davidson v Cameron [2015] QSC 294

PARTIES:

PETER WILLIAM DAVIDSON as executor and Trustee of the Will of JOHN FRANCIS JONES, deceased
(applicant)
v
SUSAN PATRICIA CAMERON
(first respondent)
JACK BRADFORD as Personal Representative of ALMA BERNICE PERKINS, deceased
(second respondent)
AND
DOROTHY ANNE STEVENS
(third respondent)
AND
KATHLEEN MIDDLETON
(fourth respondent)

FILE NO:

BS5096/15

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

29 October 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 June 2015

JUDGE:

Jackson J

ORDERS:

The order of the court is:

1.   Direct the parties to submit minutes of order to give effect to these reasons within 14 days.

2.   Direct the parties to make any submissions on costs in writing not to exceed three pages in length within 14 days.

3.   Adjourn the further hearing of the application for formal orders and orders for costs to a date to be fixed.

CATCHWORDS           

SUCCESSION – CONSTRUCTION AND EFFECT OF TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITIONS – PRINCIPLES OR RULES OF CONSTRUCTION – READING WILL AS A WHOLE – where the applicant is the executor and trustee of a deceased’s estate – where the respondents are the beneficiaries – where the applicant applied for directions as to the construction of the will – where the will and codicils create a trust of a hotel – where the will allowed “deductions of all due and correct running expenses, including any reasonable day to day ‘out of pocket’ expenses from the net income of the hotel – where the will also included a right of the “present lessee” of the hotel to “remain for as long as she wishes providing her contribution is equal to and generally recognised as fair and reasonable” – whether the running expenses include the expenses of the administration of the estate not related to the hotel

SUCCESSION – PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES – RIGHTS, POWERS AND DUTIES – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant is the executor and trustee of a deceased’s estate – where the respondents are the beneficiaries – where the applicant applied to the court under s 96 of the Trusts Act 1973 (Qld) for advice as to the applicant’s duties as a trustee and executor – whether the court should provide the judicial advice sought

Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), s 20(3), sch 1
Succession Act 1981 (Qld), ss 35(1), 52, sch 2, pt 2, item 4
Trusts Act 1973 (Qld), s 32(1)(e), 72, 97

Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564; [1992] HCA 10, applied
Attenborough v Soloman & Ors [1913] AC 76; [1912] UKHL 4, followed
Bass v Permanent Trustee Co Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 334; [1999] HCA 9, applied
Bruton Holdings Pty Ltd (in liq) v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2009) 239 CLR 346; [2009] HCA 32, cited
Re Butler [1969] QWN 48, cited
Chief Commissioner of Stamp Duties v Buckle (1998) 192 CLR 226; [1998] HCA 4, cited
Coore v Coore [2013] QSC 196, referred to

Continue reading Davidson v Cameron

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Davidson v Cameron [2015] QSC 294
Case
[2015] QSC 294
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Davidson v Cameron involved the applicant, who was both the executor and trustee of a deceased's estate, and the respondents who were the beneficiaries. The primary issue before the court was the interpretation of certain provisions within the deceased's will and codicils, particularly concerning the operation and administration of a trust established over a hotel property. Specifically, the court was required to determine whether the expenses deductible from the hotel's net income, as specified in the will, included the costs associated with the administration of the estate that were not directly related to the hotel.

The court approached the interpretation of the will by examining the language used and the overall context in which it was written. The court noted that the will allowed for deductions of all due and correct running expenses from the hotel's net income, but it was unclear whether this included administrative expenses not directly tied to the hotel's operations. The court considered the broader objectives of the will and the principle of construing testamentary dispositions in a manner that gave effect to the deceased's intentions. Given the specific wording of the will and the nature of the expenses at issue, the court concluded that the expenses deductible from the hotel's income were limited to those directly related to the operation and maintenance of the hotel, excluding broader estate administration costs.

The court also addressed the issue of whether it should provide the judicial advice sought by the applicant under section 96 of the Trusts Act 1973 (Qld). The court found that it was appropriate to give the requested advice to assist the applicant in fulfilling their duties as both executor and trustee. The court provided detailed directions to the parties to submit minutes of order and to make written submissions on costs, with a hearing for formal orders and costs to be scheduled at a later date.

The court's order required the parties to submit minutes of order within 14 days, along with any written submissions on costs not exceeding three pages in length. The further hearing of the application for formal orders and costs was adjourned to a date to be determined.

Orders

Orders of the court

The order of the court is:

1. Direct the parties to submit minutes of order to give effect to these reasons within 14 days.

2. Direct the parties to make any submissions on costs in writing not to exceed three pages in length within 14 days.

3. Adjourn the further hearing of the application for formal orders and orders for costs to a date to be fixed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.