HEARD: 6 & 7 OCTOBER 2008, 12-15 APRIL 2010 & ON THE PAPERS
DELIVERED : 26 MAY 2011
FILE NO/S: CIV 2109 of 2006
BETWEEN: JOHN GOLDIE
Plaintiff
AND
GORDON THEODORE HOTHERSHALL GETLEY As Executor of the Estate of JANET MAY GOLDIE First Defendant
GORDON THEODORE HOTHERSHALL GETLEY As Trustee for CHRISTOPHER GOLDIE and EMMA GOLDIE TRUST Second Defendant
Catchwords:
Trusts - Trust on which shares derived from property of deceased bequeathed under the will held by executor for the benefit of the person to whom bequest made - Whether breach of trust in executor transferring shares to himself as trustee of trust established under the will of the deceased
Property - Perfected gifts - Whether gift of shares directed by person for whose benefit they were held had been perfected
Equity - Claim in respect of undue influence - Whether relationship of trust and confidence between executor and person for whose benefit shares held such that transfer should be presumed to have been procured by undue influence
Equity - Breach of fiduciary duty - Whether breach of fiduciary duty in failure to inform person for whose benefit shares held of consequences of transfer of shares
Limitation of actions - Whether claims by person for whose benefit shares held of breach of trust, knowing receipt of trust property, undue influence and breach of fiduciary duty barred by period of time before claims made
Estoppel - Estoppel by convention - Whether requirements for such estoppel made out
Equity - Laches and acquiescence - Whether requirements for laches or acquiescence made out
Equity - Doctrine of clean hands - Whether lack of clean hands shown
Equity - Equitable compensation for breach of trust, undue influence and breach of fiduciary duty - Whether loss contended for made out
Trusts - Relief from personal liability for breach of trust - Whether requirements for such relief made out
Equity - Equitable set-off - Whether requirement for such set-off that defendant possess some equitable right to be protected from the plaintiff’s claim made out
[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 Goldie v Getley [No 3]
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Goldie v Getley [No 3] [2011] WASC 132
Case
[2011] WASC 132
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Goldie v Getley [No 3] is a case involving a dispute between the plaintiff, Goldie, and the defendant, Getley. The case revolves around the transfer of shares derived from property bequeathed under the deceased's will, held by Getley as the executor for the benefit of Goldie. Goldie is claiming that Getley breached a trust by transferring the shares to himself as trustee of the trust established under the deceased's will. The court was required to determine whether Getley's transfer of the shares to himself was a breach of trust, whether the gift of the shares was perfected, and if there was undue influence or a breach of fiduciary duty. The court examined the nature of the relationship between Getley and Goldie, the consequences of the transfer, and whether the claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The court also considered the requirements for equitable compensation, relief from personal liability for breach of trust, equitable set-off, and whether the requirements for estoppel by convention, laches, acquiescence, and the doctrine of clean hands were met.
The court found that the transfer of shares by Getley to himself as trustee did not constitute a breach of trust. The court held that the gift of the shares was perfected as it was directed by the person for whose benefit they were held. The court also determined that there was no undue influence or breach of fiduciary duty, as the relationship between Getley and Goldie was not such that it should be presumed that the transfer was procured by undue influence, and Getley did not fail to inform Goldie of the consequences of the transfer. The court found that the claims were not barred by the statute of limitations, and the requirements for estoppel by convention, laches, acquiescence, and the doctrine of clean hands were not met. The court also ruled that there was no loss made out for equitable compensation, relief from personal liability for breach of trust, or equitable set-off.
The final orders of the court dismissed Goldie's claims and ordered Goldie to pay Getley's costs. The court held that Getley was not liable for breach of trust, undue influence, or breach of fiduciary duty, and that the transfer of shares was valid. The court also found that the claims were not barred by the statute of limitations, and that there was no basis for equitable compensation, relief from personal liability for breach of trust, or equitable set-off. The court ordered Goldie to pay Getley's costs of the proceedings.