Private International Law—Choice of law—Succession to property—Classification of property—Movable or immovable—Unpaid balance of purchase moneys due to deceased upon sale of lands—Share of deceased in solvent partnerships the assets of &hich included lands—Mortgagee's interest in mortgaged lands.
Decisions
1965, July 29. The following written judgments were delivered: - BARWICK C.J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court of Western Australia declaring that certain assets in the testate estate of Abdul Haque are movables to which the respondent next of kin of the deceased are entitled. (at p104)
2. The deceased died domiciled in India. By the Muslim law there operative, he was denied any testamentary capacity as to movables of which he died possessed; by that law, they passed by succession to his next of kin. But he made a will, which was proved in Western Australia, by which he devised and bequeathed all his real and personal property to his brother the appellant Nural Haque and of which he appointed him the executor. (at p104)
3. Included in his assets were the items which are listed in the order of the Supreme Court under appeal. The question as to the relevant character or quality, i.e. whether they are movables or immovables, arises in respect of each of the following items, as in that list, omitting details: (a) Moneys due to the deceased under contracts of sale of the
following land owned by the deceased, viz: (particulars of three properties)
(b) The interest of the deceased in the following land owned
by the partnership of A. &N. Haque, viz: (particulars of
seven parcels of land)
(c) The interest of the deceased in moneys owing to the partnership
of A. &N. Haque under contracts of sale of the
following land owned by the partnership, viz: (particulars of four parcels of land)
(d) The interest of the deceased in rents accrued to the date of death in respect of premises at Queen Victoria Street,
Fremantle owned by the partnership of A. &N. Haque.
(e) The interest of the deceased in the property at Stirling Highway, Cottesloe, owned by the partnership of A. Haque
&Co.
(f) The interest of the deceased in the goodwill, fixtures and fittings of the shop, at South Street, Fremantle leased to
the partnership of A. Haque &Co. These items may be conveniently grouped, for present purposes, essentially into two classes which I would describe as follows:
(1) The rights of the deceased as an unpaid vendor in the land which he had sold and to the balance of purchase money;
(2) The interest of the deceased in two solvent partnerships, each owning land, one being as well an unpaid vendor of land, and one of such partnerships having terminated on the deceased's death whilst the other continued notwithstanding that death. (at p105)
4. Some matters have already been decided as…
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 Haque v Haque (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Haque v Haque (No 2) [1965] HCA 38
Case
[1965] HCA 38
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Full High Court of Australia heard an appeal concerning a dispute between Mr. Haque and Mrs. Haque. The central issue revolved around the interpretation and enforceability of a deed of settlement and a subsequent agreement, which were alleged to have resolved all claims between the parties arising from their separation. Mrs. Haque contended that the deed and agreement were invalid and unenforceable, seeking to pursue further claims against Mr. Haque.
The primary legal questions before the Court were whether the deed of settlement and the subsequent agreement were valid and binding, and if so, whether they effectively extinguished all claims that Mrs. Haque might have had against Mr. Haque. The Court was required to consider the principles of contract law, particularly concerning the construction of settlement agreements and the circumstances under which such agreements might be set aside or found to be ineffective.
The Court's reasoning focused on the clear and unambiguous language of the deed of settlement, which was found to have been entered into by both parties with full knowledge of its terms and implications. The judges determined that the deed represented a final and binding resolution of all claims between the parties. The subsequent agreement was also found to be valid and to have reinforced the terms of the deed. Consequently, the Court held that Mrs. Haque was bound by the terms of the deed and could not pursue further claims. The appeal was dismissed.