Legal Research
Cases
Hitchcock v Pratt

Hitchcock v Pratt

Case [2010] NSWSC 1508 23 December 2010

Jurisdiction

Statutory Construction

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Hitchcock v Pratt [2010] NSWSC 1508

HEARING DATE(S): 13 December 2010

JUDGMENT DATE :
23 December 2010

JURISDICTION: Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF: Brereton J

DECISION: Statute is invalid to extent it purports to authorise family provision order in respect of property outside NSW of testator who dies domiciled outside NSW. Statute can be read down to authorise family provision order in respect of immovable as well as movable property outside NSW of testator who dies domiciled in NSW, and movable as well as immovable property in NSW of testator who dies domiciled outside NSW. Testator’s power to control trustee company did not equate to power to dispose of its subsidiaries’ property. Testator’s power as director of subsidiary was not a power to dispose of subsidiary’s assets at least except for full valuable consideration. No arguable case that testator left potential notional estate in NSW. Proceedings summarily dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: SUCCESSION – Family provision and maintenance – jurisdiction – extra-territoriality – whether statute purporting to authorise family provision order in respect of property outside NSW of testator who dies domiciled outside NSW is valid exercise of state’s legislative power – whether statute can be read down – summary disposal - whether testator arguably left potential notional estate in NSW – whether de facto control of trustee company whose subsidiaries hold real estate in NSW amounts to power to dispose of that real estate within (NSW) Succession Act, s 76(2)(a) – whether director a company has power to dispose of company’s assets with s 76(2)(a)

LEGISLATION CITED: (CTH) Constitution, s 118
(NSW) Family Provision Act 1982, s 7, s 11, s 22
(NSW) Interpretation Act 1987, s 31
(NSW) Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987
(NSW) Succession Act 2006, s 59, s 64, s 65, s 66, s 73, s 76, s 78, s 83 s 88, s 89
(NSW) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r 13.4
(NSW) Wills, Probate & Administration Act 1898, s 41A

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Balajan v Nikitin (1994) 35 NSWLR 51
Estate of Thiess; Brinkman v Johnston NSWSC, Hodgson J, 4 February 1994, BC9405349
Pearce v Florenca (1976) 135 CLR 507
Heuston v Barber (1990) 19 NSWLR 354
In re Dalglish [1889] NSWR 256
Kavalee v Burbidge; Hyland v Burbidge (1998) 43 NSWLR 422
Leue v Reynolds (1986) 4 NSWLR 590
Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd v State of Victoria (2002) 211 CLR 1
Pain v Holt (1919) 19 SR (NSW) 105
Port MacDonnell Professional Fishermens Association v South Australia (1989) 168 CLR 340
Re Butchart (decd) [1932] NZLR 125
Re Dingjan; Ex parte Wagner (1995) 183 CLR 323
Stern v Sekers; Sekers v Sekers [2010] NSWSC 59
Sweedman v Transport Accident Commission (2006) 226 CLR 362
Taylor v Farrugia [2009] NSWSC 801
Union Steamship Co of Australia Pty Ltd v King (1988) 166 CLR 1

PARTIES: 2010/103339
Paula Sarah Hitchcock bht Geoffrey Evans (plaintiff)
Jeanne Pratt (defendant)
2010/103357
Sharilea Hitchcock (plaintiff)
Jeanne Pratt (defendant)
Attorney General of NSW (intervening)
2010/391466
Sharilea Hitchcock (plaintiff)
Jeanne Pratt…

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 Hitchcock v Pratt

Details

AGLC: Hitchcock v Pratt [2010] NSWSC 1508
Case: [2010] NSWSC 1508
Decision Date: 23 December 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hitchcock v Pratt involved a dispute concerning family provision and maintenance under the NSW Succession Act. The deceased, who died domiciled in the UK, left an estate that included properties located in New South Wales. The court was tasked with determining whether the statute could authorise a family provision order in respect of property situated outside NSW, and if it could be read down to avoid inconsistency with the Constitution. The applicants sought to have the UK estate subject to a family provision order in NSW, arguing that the deceased arguably left a potential notional estate in NSW due to the de facto control exercised by the trustee company over its subsidiaries' NSW properties.

The legal issues before the court included the validity of the NSW statute in authorising family provision orders for extra-territorial property, the interpretation and potential reading down of the statute to avoid constitutional conflict, and the applicability of the summary disposal provisions. The court also had to determine whether the deceased's de facto control over the trustee company's subsidiaries constituted a power to dispose of the NSW properties, and if a company director had the power to dispose of company assets under the NSW Succession Act.

In resolving these issues, the court found that the NSW statute was a valid exercise of the state’s legislative power, and it could not be read down to avoid inconsistency with the Constitution. The court held that the deceased did not arguably leave a potential notional estate in NSW, as the de facto control exercised by the trustee company over its subsidiaries' NSW properties did not amount to a power to dispose of those properties. Additionally, the court ruled that a director of a company did not have the power to dispose of the company's assets under the NSW Succession Act. The court dismissed the applicants' claims and made orders for the summary disposal of the proceedings.

The court's final orders were that the applicants' claims be dismissed, the proceedings be struck out, and costs be awarded to the respondents. The applicants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs on an indemnity basis, reflecting the court's determination that the applicants' claims were without merit.

Orders