Jeavons v Chapman

Case [2008] SASC 249

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Civil: Application)

JEAVONS v CHAPMAN

[2008] SASC 249

Judgment of The Honourable Justice Gray

19 September 2008

PROCEDURE - SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - PROCEDURE UNDER RULES OF COURT - PARTIES - OTHER MATTERS

Application for non-party intervention in civil proceedings pursuant to Rule 89, Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 – plaintiffs granted protection order over defendant and defendant’s estate and appointed of estate pursuant to sections 7 and 10 Aged and Infirm Persons’ Property Act 1940 (SA) – plaintiffs sought advice, directions and authorisations from Court in relation to management of estate pursuant to section 13(2) and 16 Aged and Infirm Persons’ Property Act – two beneficiaries under defendant’s last known executed will sought permission to intervene in proceedings – whether beneficiaries had an appropriate interest in the civil proceedings so as to justify their intervention as non-parties.

Held:  application allowed – plaintiffs’ application for advice, directions and authorisation may materially affect beneficiaries interests under defendant’s will – beneficiaries have a direct interest in related testamentary causes proceedings – intervention of beneficiaries will not significantly increase the length of hearing or inappropriately add to the costs of the proceedings.

JEAVONS v CHAPMAN
[2008] SASC 249

Civil

GRAY J.

  1. This is an application for non-party intervention, pursuant to Rule 89 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA).

    Background

  2. On 18 February 2008, the plaintiffs, Juliet Marie Seymour Jeavons and Steven David Jeavons, by summons instituted the within proceedings (“the civil proceedings”).  The civil proceedings sought, inter alia, a protection order in relation to the defendant, Torrie Stoddart Chapman, and her estate pursuant to section 7 of the Aged and Infirm Persons’ Property Act 1940 (SA),[1] and the appointment of the plaintiffs as managers of the protected estate, pursuant to section 10 of the Aged and Infirm Persons’ Property Act.[2] The summons was issued pursuant to section 8(1)(e) of the Aged and Infirm Persons’ Property Act,[3] on the basis that Mr and Mrs Jeavons were persons who would adduce proof of circumstances, which in the opinion of the Court, would make it proper that they should make the application.

    [1] Section 7 of the Aged and Infirm Persons’ Property Act 1940 (SA) relevantly provides as follows:

    (1)Where it is made to appear to the satisfaction of the court that any person is, by reason of age, disease, illness, or physical or mental infirmity—

    (a)     unable, wholly or partially, to manage his affairs; or

    (b)    subject to, or liable to be subjected to, undue influence in respect of his estate, or the disposition thereof, or of any part thereof; or

    (c)     otherwise in a position which in the opinion of the court renders it necessary in the interest of that person or of those dependent upon him that his property should be protected as provided by this Act,

    the court may make a protection order in respect of the estate or part of the estate of that person.

    …

    [2] Section 10…

Continue reading Jeavons v Chapman

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Jeavons v Chapman [2008] SASC 249
Case
[2008] SASC 249
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jeavons v Chapman involves an application for non-party intervention in civil proceedings. The plaintiffs, Juliet Marie Seymour Jeavons and Steven David Jeavons, had instituted proceedings to obtain a protection order over the defendant, Torrie Stoddart Chapman, and her estate, as well as an appointment of the plaintiffs as managers of the protected estate. The plaintiffs sought advice, directions, and authorisations from the court in relation to the management of the estate. Two beneficiaries under the defendant’s will sought permission to intervene in the proceedings. The key legal issue before the court was whether the beneficiaries had an appropriate interest in the proceedings to justify their intervention as non-parties.

The court found that the application for non-party intervention was permissible. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs’ application for advice, directions, and authorisations in relation to the management of the estate could materially affect the beneficiaries' interests under the defendant’s will. The beneficiaries had a direct interest in related testamentary causes proceedings, and their intervention would not significantly increase the length of any hearing or inappropriately add to the costs of the proceedings. The court concluded that the beneficiaries had an appropriate interest in the subject matter of the civil proceedings, which justified their intervention as non-parties.

The court granted the application for non-party intervention and allowed the beneficiaries to participate in the proceedings. The court found that the involvement of the National Trust and Ms Ellemor in the proceedings would not significantly increase the length of any hearing or add to the costs of the proceedings. The court determined that the beneficiaries’ intervention should not be limited or restricted. The court’s decision allowed the beneficiaries to seek advice, directions, and authorisations from the court in relation to the management of the estate, and to protect their interests under the defendant’s will.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

This is an application for non-party intervention, pursuant to Rule 89 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA).Background On 18 February 2008, the plaintiffs, Juliet Marie Seymour Jeavons and Steven David Jeavons, by summons instituted the within proceedings (“the civil proceedings”). The civil proceedings sought, inter alia, a protection order in relation to the defendant, Torrie Stoddart Chapman, and her estate pursuant to section 7 of the Aged and Infirm Persons’ Property Act 1940 (SA),[1] and the appointment of the plaintiffs as managers of the protected estate, pursuant to section 10 of the Aged and Infirm Persons’ Property Act.[2] The summons was issued pursuant to section 8(1)(e) of the Aged and Infirm Persons’ Property Act,[3] on the basis that Mr and Mrs Jeavons were persons who would adduce proof of circumstances, which in the opinion of the Court, would make it proper that they should make the application.[1] Section 7 of the Aged and Infirm Persons’ Property Act 1940 (SA) relevantly provides as follows:(1)Where it is made to appear to the satisfaction of the court that any person is, by reason of age, disease, illness, or physical or mental infirmity—(a) unable, wholly or partially, to manage his affairs; or(b) subject to, or liable to be subjected to, undue influence in respect of his estate, or the disposition thereof, or of any part thereof; or(c) otherwise in a position which in the opinion of the court renders it necessary in the interest of that person or of those dependent upon him that his property should be protected as provided by this Act,the court may make a protection order in respect of the estate or part of the estate of that person.…[2] Section 10 of Aged and Infirm Persons’ Property Act 1940 (SA) provides as follows:(1)If the court thinks fit to make a protection order, the court shall, in and by the protection order, appoint the spouse, domestic partner or near relation by blood or marriage of the protected person, or some other person, or any body corporate incorporated in this State by or pursuant to any law of this State, either alone or with any other person or persons, or the Public Trustee alone, to be the manager to take possession of and to control and manage all or such part or parts of the estate of the protected person as the court may direct.… [3] Section 8(1)(e) of the Aged and Infirm Persons’ Property Act 1940 (SA) provides as follows:(1)Except in the case of an application made under subsection (1) of section 8A of this Act, every application for a protection order shall be made by originating summons, and may be made—…(e) by any other person who adduces proof of circumstances which in the opinion of the court make it proper that such other person should make the application. On 27 March 2008, a Master of this Court made the protection order in relation to Mrs Chapman and her estate and appointed the plaintiffs as managers of the protected estate. The Master was satisfied that Mrs Chapman was, by reason of age, disease, illness, or physical or mental infirmity, unable, wholly or partially to manage her affairs.[4][4] See Aged and Infirm Persons’ Property Act 1940 (SA), section 7(1)(a).

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

GRAY J
The effect of the National Trust’s and Ms Ellemor’s involvement in the civil proceedings would not significantly increase the length of any hearing on the subject-matter and would not inappropriately add to the costs of the proceeding.[33][33] Trop Nom v Liquor Licensing Commissioner (1987) 46 SASR 255 at 266; National Bank of Australia v Hokit (1996) 39 NSWLR 377 at 381 (Mahoney P with whom Waddell AJA agreed).Conclusion In all of these circumstances, I consider that the National Trust and Ms Ellemor have an appropriate interest in the subject-matter of the civil proceedings, so as to justify their intervention as non-parties. In my view, the intervention of the National Trust and Ms Ellemor should not be limited or restricted.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: GRAY J

Full text does not contain this section.