Legal Research
Cases
Gonzales v Claridades

Gonzales v Claridades

Link copied

Case Copied 12 June 2003 52 min read

Contents

On this page

Reported Decision:
58 NSWLR 188

Supreme Court

CITATION: Gonzales v Claridades [2003] NSWSC 508

HEARING DATE(S): 30 May 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
12 June 2003

JURISDICTION:
Equity

JUDGMENT OF: Campbell J

DECISION: Application for interim distribution of residuary estate refused.

CATCHWORDS: SUCCESSION- WILLS, PROBATE AND ADMINISTRATION- rules of public policy - forfeiture by killing -application to have funds released to person accused of murdering testator - EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS - what constitutes administration being completed - personal liability of representative for release of funds to wrong beneficiary - EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS - rights, powers and duties - duty to ascertain the beneficiaries - duty where notice of possible forfeiture by a beneficiary - PROCEDURE - administration of estates - application to release funds to a possible beneficiary before estate administration complete - basis for a right of a beneficiary from an estate not fully administered - appropriation - interim distributions -whether beneficiary has a right to be paid where there is an undecided forfeiture question - PROCEDURE - administration of estates - summary relief requiring distribution by executor - when appropriate - EVIDENCE - CIVIL PROCEEDINGS - effect of a verdict in criminal proceedings on a factual question in civil proceedings - admissibility and significance of a conviction - EVIDENCE - onus of proof - presumption of innocence - role in proof of criminal or seriously wrongful acts within civil proceedings - whether applicable in litigation where whether such an act has occurred is not being decided.

LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act 1995
Family Provision Act 1982
Forfeiture Act 1995
Inheritance (Family Provision) Act 1938
Justices Act 1902
Real Property Act 1900
Trustee Act 1925
Wills, Probate and Administration Act 1898

CASES CITED: Re Anderson (1953) 53 SR(NSW) 520
Re Benjamin [1902] 1 Ch 723
Blackman v Permanent Trustee Co Ltd [2003] NSWSC 305
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
The Brisbane Shipwrights' Provident Union & Ors v Heggie (1906) 3 CLR 686
In Re Buckton; Buckton v Buckton [1907] 2 Ch 406
Burns Philp Trustee Co Ltd v Viney [1982] 2 NSWLR 216
Clark v Flanagan (1934) 52 CLR 416
Commissioner of Australian Federal Police v Propend Finance Pty Limited (1997) 188 CLR 501
Commissioner of Stamp Duties (Qld) v Livingston [1965] AC 694
In the Will of Hannah Cowell (Deceased) (1894) 16 NSWR B&P 51
In the Estate of Crippin [1911] P 108, [1911] All ER Rep 207
In Re Cunningham; Sproule v Quested (1914) 31 WN (NSW) 44
Re Dellow's Will Trusts [1964] 1 WLR 451
Emanuel v Emanuel [1946] P 115
Halabi v Westpac Banking Corporation (1989) 17 NSWLR 26
In the Estate of Julian Bernard Hall deceased; Hall v Knight and Baxter [1914] P 1
In Re Halston; Ewen v Halson [1912] 1 Ch 435
Helton v Allen (1940) 63 CLR 691
Hollington v F Hewthorn & Co Ltd [1943] KB 587
Joseph Constantine Steamship Line Limited v Imperial Smelting Corporation Limited [1942] AC 154
McMahon v Gould (1982) 7 ACLR 202
Murdocca v Murdocca (No.2)

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Gonzales v Claridades and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2003] NSWSC 508
Decision Date: 12 June 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in Gonzales v Claridades were the administrator of a deceased estate, acting on behalf of the estate, and a person who stood to benefit from the estate but was accused of having murdered the deceased. The dispute concerned the release of funds from the estate to the accused beneficiary and whether the administrator could be held personally liable for such a release. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The legal issues before the court included whether the administrator could release funds to a beneficiary accused of the testator's murder and whether this action would result in personal liability for the administrator. Another issue was whether the administrator had a duty to ascertain the beneficiaries and what the implications were if a possible forfeiture by a beneficiary was noticed. The court also considered whether a beneficiary had a right to be paid from an estate that had not been fully administered and the effect of a verdict in criminal proceedings on a factual question in civil proceedings.

The court held that the administrator did not have the right to release funds to a beneficiary accused of murdering the testator, and doing so could result in personal liability. The court found that the administrator had a duty to ascertain beneficiaries and that if a possible forfeiture was noticed, the administrator had to act accordingly. The court also ruled that a beneficiary did not have a right to be paid from an estate that had not been fully administered and that the effect of a conviction in criminal proceedings on a factual question in civil proceedings was not as significant as the presumption of innocence in civil proceedings. The court determined that the onus of proof in civil proceedings for criminal or seriously wrongful acts was on the party alleging the act.

The court ordered that the administrator could not release funds to the accused beneficiary and that the administrator could be held personally liable for such a release. The court also ordered that the estate administration would continue until all issues were resolved, and no interim distributions would be made. The court further ordered that the presumption of innocence in civil proceedings applied, and the onus of proof was on the party alleging the criminal or seriously wrongful act.

Orders