Griffin v Coe

The case of Griffin v Coe involved a dispute regarding the actions of executors named in a will, both before and after the grant of probate. The executors, who were also beneficiaries of the will, were accused of intermeddling and committing devastavit. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Griffin, sought to hold the executors, Coe, accountable for their actions and requested the court to strike out the defendants' defence on the basis that it was untenable.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the executors had indeed intermeddled in the estate and, if so, what the consequences of such actions were. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the executors had committed devastavit by appropriating estate assets for their own benefit. The court was required to consider the effect of the executors' intermeddling on the validity of their actions and the potential need for the plaintiff to seek redress through alternative legal avenues.

In addressing these issues, the court found that the executors had indeed intermeddled in the estate by taking actions that amounted to interference before the grant of probate and by continuing to do so after the grant. The court held that the executors' actions constituted devastavit, as they had misappropriated estate assets for their own benefit. The court also noted that the executors' intermeddling rendered their actions void, but did not automatically entitle the plaintiff to strike out the defence. The court concluded that the plaintiff's claim was not untenable and that the dispute should proceed to trial to determine the appropriate remedy. The court denied the plaintiff's application to strike out the defence.