Hall v Hall - [2018] VSC 692

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
TRUSTS, EQUITY & PROBATE LIST

S ECI 2016 00036

GREGORY THOMAS HALL	Plaintiff
v
THOMAS LYNDEN HALL & ORS (according to the Schedule attached)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	McDonald J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	9 November 2018
DATE OF RULING:	9 November 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Hall v Hall & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSC 692

---

WILLS AND ESTATES – Application by trustee for approval of settlement of legal proceedings – Appropriate for trustee to enter into deed of settlement and scheme of family arrangement – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 rr 16.01(4), 54.02(2).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr D McAloon	Strongman & Crouch Solicitors
For the First and Fifth Defendants	No appearance	-
For the Second to Fourth Defendants and Ian Redvers Maclaine Morrison (a non-party)	Mr S Wotherspoon	Aitken Partners

HIS HONOUR:

On 19 February 2016, Gregory Hall commenced a proceeding against Thomas Hall, the second to fourth defendants, and Mr David Davis as the fifth defendant.[1] By a second further amended statement of claim dated 5 December 2017, Gregory advanced claims for the appointment of new trustees to four trusts, an accounting by Thomas of his dealings with trust property, equitable compensation, and other relief. Thomas denied the claims.
[1]The proceeding was dismissed against Mr Davis pursuant to the order of McMillan J made on 1 September 2017. Ms Katrina Cudmore, the first defendant’s wife, was joined as the fifth defendant to this proceeding pursuant to the order of McDonald J made on 13 September 2018.

The proceeding was set down for trial on 1 May 2018 on an estimate of eight to ten days. Following a Court-ordered mediation, heads of agreement were signed by Gregory, Thomas, Robert Hall and Mr Morrison. Mr Morrison agreed to accept appointment as trustee of the trusts, to seek a grant of representation in relation to the late Thomas William Hall’s estate, and to establish a framework for narrowing issues in dispute between Gregory and Thomas. Forensic accounting investigations were undertaken by Mr Phillip Herbert on Mr Morrison’s behalf.

An order was made on 1 May 2018 giving effect to the heads of agreement. Paragraph 5 of that order precluded Mr Morrison from disposing of, distributing, encumbering or otherwise dealing with the assets of the trusts and companies, except in accordance with an order of the Court.

On 7 November 2018, the parties to the current proceeding executed a deed of settlement (‘deed’) to resolve all issues in dispute, save for costs, and reserving the rights of the plaintiff and the first defendant to make applications for their costs.

By a summons dated 8 November 2018, Mr Morrison, in his capacity as trustee of various family trusts, makes an application for approval of the compromise embodied in the deed. The application is made pursuant to rr 16.01(4) and 54.02(2)(c)(i) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015

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 Hall v Hall

Details

AGLC: Hall v Hall [2018] VSC 692
Case: [2018] VSC 692
Decision Date: 9 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hall v Hall involved the estate of the deceased, John Hall, and was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary dispute was over the interpretation and execution of John Hall's will, with particular focus on the distribution of assets and the settlement of litigation concerning the estate. The Court was tasked with determining whether the trustee of the estate was justified in entering into a deed of settlement and a scheme of family arrangement.

The legal issues before the Court included the interpretation of the will, the authority of the trustee to enter into a settlement, and whether the proposed deed and scheme were in the best interests of the beneficiaries. The Court had to consider the relevant provisions of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, specifically rules 16.01(4) and 54.02(2), which pertain to the approval of settlements by trustees.

The Court found that the trustee had acted within their authority under the will and the relevant procedural rules. The Court noted that the proposed settlement and scheme of family arrangement were reasonable and in the best interests of the beneficiaries, taking into account the avoidance of prolonged litigation and the equitable distribution of the estate. The Court approved the trustee's actions, allowing the settlement to proceed.

The final orders of the Court were that the trustee's application for approval of the settlement of legal proceedings was granted. The deed of settlement and the scheme of family arrangement were approved, allowing the estate to be distributed in accordance with the terms agreed upon by the parties. The Court also ordered that the costs of the application be borne by the estate.

Orders