In re XY; ex parte State Trustees Ltd - [2001] VSC 89

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE		Not Restricted
COMMERCIAL & EQUITY DIVISION

No. 5191 of 2001

IN THE WILL AND ESTATE of XY deceased and
IN THE MATTER of an application pursuant to Rule 54.02 of the General Rules of Procedure

STATE TRUSTEES LTD (ACN 064 593 148)
(As Administrator of the estate of the abovenamed Deceased)

Plaintiff

---

JUDGE:	Byrne J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	10 April 2001
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	1 May 2001
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	In re XY; ex parte State Trustees Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001]VSC 89

---

Administration and Probate – intestacy – child of deceased – whether administrator should pursue enquiries – DNA test – admission of paternity.

Status of Children Act 1974 s. 7(1).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr R.R. Boaden	State Trustees, Legal Branch

HIS HONOUR:

The plaintiff, State Trustees Ltd, approaches the court by originating motion filed on 3 April 2001 seeking directions as to certain matters arising in the administration of the estate of a deceased person whom I shall call, XY. XY died intestate in 1999. The matters concern the duty of his administrator to investigate and ascertain whether an identified person is the child of the deceased. For reasons which will become apparent I shall refer to this child simply as AB.

In its originating motion filed on 3 April 2001 State Trustees seeks the following advice and direction:

“1.Whether any, and if so what, further steps should be taken by the plaintiff in its capacity as the administrator of the intestate estate of the abovenamed Deceased to investigate and ascertain whether [AB] (a minor who was born on 17 November 1984) is a child of the Deceased.
2.An order that, in the absence of any further evidence showing that [AB] is a child of the Deceased, the plaintiff is justified in administering and distributing the estate of the Deceased on the footing that the only child of the Deceased who survived him is [M] who was born on 16 December 1995.”

The deceased was born in 1941, married in 1969 and divorced in 1977. There were no children of the marriage and the deceased did not remarry. He died on 16 November 1999 leaving surviving him two sisters and a brother and a natural daughter, M, born in 1995 of a woman with whom he had had a relationship since the early 1990s.

Pursuant to the provisions of Part 1 Division 6 of the Administration and Probate Act 1958, the whole of the estate of the deceased will, subject to the rights, if any, of AB, pass to his natural daughter. Each of the former wife, the brother and sisters and the former partner of the deceased have made application seeking provision from his estate pursuant to Part 4 of the Administration and Probate Act 1958.

AB was born in 1984 to a woman who was then married and living with her husband. These persons are registered as the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read In re XY; ex parte State Trustees Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2001] VSC 89
Decision Date: 1 May 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of In re XY; ex parte State Trustees Ltd, the central dispute involved the estate of a deceased person, XY, and whether an administrator should pursue enquiries to determine if a child of the deceased existed. The matter was brought before the court by State Trustees Ltd, which was seeking to administer the estate. The question before the court was whether the administrator should undertake investigations to ascertain the existence of a child of the deceased, potentially leading to a DNA test and an admission of paternity.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the administrator was obligated to investigate the potential existence of a child of the deceased, who could be entitled to a portion of the estate under the intestacy laws. The court needed to consider the statutory provisions under the Status of Children Act 1974, particularly section 7(1), which deals with the rights of children in relation to the estate of a deceased parent. The court also had to weigh the public policy considerations regarding the administration of estates and the rights of potential beneficiaries.

The court held that the administrator was not obliged to pursue enquiries into the potential existence of a child unless there was a reasonable basis to believe that such a child existed. The court reasoned that the administration of estates should proceed efficiently and that unnecessary investigations could be burdensome and wasteful. However, the court acknowledged that if there was substantial evidence suggesting the existence of a child, the administrator would be obliged to investigate further. The court ultimately concluded that without such evidence, the administrator was not required to pursue enquiries into the potential existence of a child.

The court ordered that the administrator was not required to undertake any investigations into the potential existence of a child of the deceased unless and until there was a reasonable basis to believe such a child existed. The court further directed that the estate should be administered in accordance with the intestacy laws, pending any further developments that might arise from potential claims by a child.

Orders