Grant v Grant

Case [2021] NSWCA 181


Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Grant v Grant [2021] NSWCA 181
Hearing dates: 12 March 2021
Date of orders: 18 August 2021
Decision date: 18 August 2021
Before: Basten JA at [1];
Leeming JA at [2];
White JA at [3]
Decision:

1 Appeal dismissed.

2 The first and second appellants pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal from the declarations and orders made in proceedings 2017/316190 (the estate recovery proceedings).

3 The first appellant pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal from the orders made in proceedings 2018/139174 (the family provision proceedings).

4 Discharge the stay granted on 14 December 2020 of the orders made in the Equity Division on 24 September 2020.

5 Direct that any application by the respondents for any consequential orders be made to the primary judge, or such other judge as the Chief Judge in Equity may direct.

Catchwords:

SUCCESSION — Claim by estate to recover property — Where property of deceased transferred by deceased’s daughter by way of gift in favour of deceased’s granddaughter in exercise of power of attorney — Where no power of gift conferred on attorney — Where daughter purportedly acted pursuant to direction in letter — Whether deceased’s signature was forged

SUCCESSION — Family provision — Claim by adult child — Where evidence of ill treatment of testatrix by claimant — Where evidence that claimant received substantial benefits from testatrix before death

Legislation Cited:

Powers of Attorney Act 2003 (NSW), Pt 2, s 11

Succession Act 2006 (NSW), s 100(2)

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 36.16(3A)

Cases Cited:

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Nerez Gwynneth Grant (First appellant)
Kashaya Williams (Second appellant)
Seth Grant (First respondent)
Tansin Leckie (Second respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr L Ellison with Mr N Avery-Williams (Respondents)

Solicitors:
First Appellant self-represented
Teece Hodgson & Ward (Respondents)
File Number(s): 2020/287951
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Jurisdiction:
Equity
Citation:

[2020] NSWSC 1288

Date of Decision:
24 September 2020
Before:
Slattery J
File Number(s):
2017/316190; 2018/139174

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

By his tutor, Dr Alan Grant brought proceedings against his daughter Nerez Grant and her daughter Kashaya Williams seeking to set aside a transfer of land in favour of Kashaya which was executed by Nerez as her father’s attorney on 27 September 2017. He also sought sums of $100,000 and $34,700 transferred out of his bank account by Nerez. Dr Grant died in the course of the proceedings and his estate was ultimately represented by his son Seth Grant as administrator ad litem.

The power of attorney was given to Nerez on 10 July 2014. It did not authorise her to make gifts of Dr Grant’s property. The memorandum of transfer executed by Nerez stated that it had been given for consideration of $900,000 in favour of Dr Grant. No consideration was paid.

The appellants relied…

Continue reading Grant v Grant

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Grant v Grant [2021] NSWCA 181
Case
[2021] NSWCA 181
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Grant v Grant* concerned two distinct proceedings that were heard together on appeal. The first proceeding involved a claim by the estate of the deceased against the deceased's daughter and granddaughter concerning the transfer of property. The deceased's daughter, acting under a power of attorney, had transferred property to the granddaughter as a gift. The estate alleged that the deceased's signature on the relevant documents was forged and that the power of attorney did not confer a power to gift. The second proceeding was a family provision claim brought by an adult child of the deceased against the estate. The Court of Appeal of New South Wales comprised Basten, Leeming and White JJA.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal included whether the deceased's signature on the transfer documents was a forgery, and consequently, whether the transfer of property to the granddaughter was valid. Additionally, the court was required to determine whether the power of attorney granted to the daughter included the authority to make gifts of the deceased's property, particularly in light of a letter purportedly directing such a gift. In the family provision proceedings, the court had to consider the claim by the adult child, taking into account evidence of past ill-treatment of the testatrix by the claimant and the substantial benefits the claimant had already received from the testatrix prior to her death.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The court's reasoning, though not detailed in the provided text, led to the conclusion that the estate's claims regarding the property transfer were unsuccessful, and the family provision claim was also dismissed. This outcome suggests that the court found the property transfer to be valid, or at least that the estate had not proven its case for recovery, and that the adult child was not entitled to further provision from the estate.

Consequently, the court ordered that the first and second appellants pay the respondents' costs of the appeal in the estate recovery proceedings. The first appellant was also ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal in the family provision proceedings. A stay previously granted on certain orders was discharged, and directions were given for any applications for consequential orders to be made to the primary judge.

Orders

Orders of the court

1 Appeal dismissed.

2 The first and second appellants pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal from the declarations and orders made in proceedings 2017/316190 (the estate recovery proceedings).

3 The first appellant pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal from the orders made in proceedings 2018/139174 (the family provision proceedings).

4 Discharge the stay granted on 14 December 2020 of the orders made in the Equity Division on 24 September 2020.

5 Direct that any application by the respondents for any consequential orders be made to the primary judge, or such other judge as the Chief Judge in Equity may direct.

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.