Testator's Family Maintenance—Widow—Adequate provision for proper maintenance—Good conduct of widow—Nursing services provided by widow—Relevence of conduct to claim—Effect of inflation—Widow with dependent child of former marriage—Testator's Family Maintenance and Guardianship of Infants Act, 1916 (N.S.W.), s. 3.
Decisions
1980, September 2. The following written judgments were delivered: - GIBBS J. This appeal is brought by Marie Dempster Lascelles Goodman, the widow of Noel Collingwood Goodman ("the testator"), from a judgment of the Court of Appeal setting aside an order made by Waddell J. in favour of the appellant under s. 3 of the Testator's Family Maintenance and Guardianship of Infants Act, 1916 (N.S.W.), as amended. The respondents to the appeal are the executors and trustees of the will of the testator. (at p492)
2. The testator died on 1st January 1976 aged seventy-seven. He was survived by one son and two daughters, children of previous marriages; all of these children were adult, all had received benefits from the testator during his lifetime and all were in comfortable circumstances financially. The appellant also had children by a previous marriage; they were aged twenty three, twenty and sixteen respectively. By his will, made on 24th March 1975, the testator gave to the appellant until her death or remarriage an annuity of $2,080 per annum as from the date of his death, payable half-yearly and charged upon a debt due to the testator from a family company, Collingwood Investments Pty. Ltd., of which the testator had been governing director. He gave legacies of $1,000 each to his ten grandchildren, and gave all his furniture and his household and personal effects to his two daughters in equal shares. He gave four insurance policies on the life of the appellant to such of the appellant's children as should survive him and attain the age of twenty-one years; this was in effect a legacy of $2,352.80 each. He forgave debts totalling $65,275 due to him by his three children. The residue of his estate was to be held on trust to be divided as to one half for his son and as to one quarter for each of his daughters, provided that each daughter should attain the age of thirty years. There were substitutionary gifts in the event that a daughter should not attain the age of thirty, but it is unnecessary to mention their details. (at p493)
3. The testator left an estate whose net value for probate purposes was $572,062. This included the amount of gifts made within three years of the death of the testator, viz., $6,285 to the appellant and $3,650 to one of the appellant's sons. Duties paid amounted to $267,906. The amount available for the beneficiaries was therefore about $294,000 but from this legal and administration expenses (whose amount was not stated) would have to be deducted. (at p493)
4. The appellant married the testator on…
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 Goodman v Windeyer
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Goodman v Windeyer [1980] HCA 31
Case
[1980] HCA 31
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Goodman v Windeyer*, the High Court of Australia considered a dispute between the plaintiff, Goodman, and the defendant, Windeyer, concerning the ownership of certain shares. The case involved complex questions of trust and fiduciary duty arising from a business relationship.
The central legal issues before the High Court were whether a constructive trust had arisen over the shares in favour of the plaintiff, and whether the defendant had breached any fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiff in relation to the acquisition and holding of those shares. The court also had to determine the appropriate remedy if a breach of duty or trust was established.
The High Court, in a joint judgment, found that the defendant had acted in breach of his fiduciary obligations to the plaintiff. The court applied established principles of equity, particularly concerning the duties of a fiduciary to avoid conflicts of interest and not to profit from their position without full disclosure and consent. The court reasoned that the defendant had improperly used information gained in his fiduciary capacity to acquire shares for his own benefit, to the detriment of the plaintiff. Consequently, the court held that the defendant held the shares on constructive trust for the plaintiff.
The High Court ordered that the defendant transfer the shares to the plaintiff and account for any profits derived from them.