Gibson v Murray

In Gibson v Murray, the plaintiffs sought to have their interests under a Deed of Family Arrangement recognised by the court. The dispute arose from a family arrangement that was intended to provide for a life estate for the plaintiffs and a remainder interest for other family members. The defendants, who were the executors of an estate, argued that the plaintiffs' claim was barred by limitations under the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW). The primary legal issue was whether the plaintiffs' claim to enforce their interest under the Deed of Family Arrangement constituted an action to "enforce an equitable estate or interest in land" within the meaning of section 36 of the Limitation Act, or whether it was a "cause of action to recover land" under section 27(2) of the Act. Additionally, the court had to consider when a cause of action to recover a life estate accrues, and whether the limitation period began when the facts were known or discoverable with reasonable diligence.

The court determined that the plaintiffs' claim was indeed an action to enforce an equitable interest in land, falling within the purview of section 36 of the Limitation Act. It was held that the limitation period for such actions is six years, beginning when the cause of action accrued. The court found that the cause of action for the plaintiffs accrued when the Deed of Family Arrangement was executed, as it was at that point that the plaintiffs' equitable interest in the land came into existence. The court also noted that the plaintiffs' claim was not a cause of action to recover land but rather to enforce an equitable interest in it, and thus the provisions of section 27(2) did not apply. Finally, the court concluded that the limitation period did not begin until the plaintiffs knew or ought to have known of the alleged appropriation of the estate by the administrators, which occurred after the testator's death.

The court's decision clarified the distinction between actions to enforce equitable interests in land and those to recover land, and provided guidance on when the limitation period begins to run in such cases. The plaintiffs' claim was found to be within the six-year limitation period, and the court ordered that their interests under the Deed of Family Arrangement be recognised. The defendants were required to account for the plaintiffs' interests in the estate and compensate them accordingly. The final orders of the court included recognition of the plaintiffs' life estate in the property, and a determination that the defendants' actions were in breach of their fiduciary duties as executors.