NOELLE ELIZABETH HILLMAN v LYNDA BOX, DEBRAH BOX AND SKYE BOX
AS EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF GRAEME WILLIAM BOX (NO 4)
[2014] ACTSC 107 (28 May 2014)
CONVEYANCING – LAND TITLES UNDER THE TORRENS SYSTEM – Joint Tenancy and Tenancy in Common – Whether signed Deed and Transfer severs joint tenancy – Title transfer not completed before death of deceased – Principle of severance of joint
tenancy – Joint tenancy severed in equity
DEEDS – What Amounts to a Deed – Whether document in question Agreement or Deed – No extrinsic evidence of intention of parties – Construction of document required –
Document in question is a Deed
DEEDS – Claim Deed should be set aside on the ground of non est factum – Alternative claim that Deed should be set aside due to undue influence exerted on the Applicant – Applicant not prevented from seeking independent legal advice – Applicant freely signed Deed – Applicant capable of understanding the Deed – No undue influence exerted on the Applicant – Claim dismissed
SUCCESSION – FAMILY PROVISION AND MAINTENANCE – Applicant former domestic partner of deceased – Whether domestic partnership had ended at the time of the death of the deceased – Whether Applicant cared for the deceased during last illness –
Applicant not adequately provided for
SUCCESSION – WILLS, PROBATE AND ADMINISTRATION – Claim for chattels alleged to be jointly owned with the deceased – Chattels divided under Deed – Claim
dismissed
SUCCESSION – WILLS, PROBATE AND ADMINISTRATION – Claim that half the proceeds of a property sale held on constructive trust for the Applicant – Title in name of deceased only – Property purchased with funds of deceased – No significant financial contribution by the Applicant – No constructive trust exists
[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 Hillman v Box (No 4)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Hillman v Box (No 4) [2014] ACTSC 107
Case
[2014] ACTSC 107
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In this matter, the Applicant, a former domestic partner of the deceased, sought various orders relating to the deceased's estate. The Applicant claimed that she had not been adequately provided for by the deceased's will and sought an order under the Family Provision and Maintenance Act. The Applicant also sought orders that the deceased's joint tenancy in a property be severed in equity, that a Deed should be set aside on the basis of non est factum or undue influence, and that certain chattels and half the proceeds of a property sale be held on constructive trust for her. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
The court was required to determine several key legal issues. Firstly, whether the signed Deed severed the joint tenancy between the deceased and the Applicant. Secondly, whether the Deed should be set aside on the grounds of non est factum or undue influence. Thirdly, whether the Applicant had been adequately provided for under the deceased's will, and if not, whether she was entitled to an order under the Family Provision and Maintenance Act. Fourthly, whether the Applicant was entitled to a share of the chattels and half the proceeds of the property sale.
The court held that the signed Deed did sever the joint tenancy in equity, as the Deed was valid and properly executed. The Applicant had freely signed the Deed and was capable of understanding it, and had not been prevented from seeking independent legal advice. The court also found that the Applicant had not been adequately provided for by the deceased's will, and accordingly made an order under the Family Provision and Maintenance Act. However, the court dismissed the Applicant's claim for chattels and for half the proceeds of the property sale, as the Applicant had not made a significant financial contribution to the purchase of the property and there was no constructive trust in her favour.
The court ordered that the Applicant be paid a lump sum from the deceased's estate under the Family Provision and Maintenance Act. No other orders were made in favour of the Applicant.