JOHNSON -v- STANIFORTH & ORS [2001] WASC 331

Link to Appeal :

[2002] WASCA 23

[2002] WASCA 97

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2001] WASC 331
Case No:	CIV:1015/2000	Heard:	21 NOVEMBER 2001
Coram:	HASLUCK J	Delivered:	10/12/01
No of pages:	10	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Judgment for defendants on preliminary issue
Category:	A
PDF Version

Parties:	DONALD EDWIN JOHNSON WINNIE KATIE STANIFORTH FIONA LISA STANIFORTH
Catchwords:	Guardianship and Administration Act Effect of administration order made pursuant to the Act Person affected by order incapable of making any disposition Whether execution of a Will can be characterised as a disposition Preliminary issue as to meaning of "disposition" Execution of a Will held not to be a disposition
Legislation:	Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 4, s 64(1), s 69, s 77(1)(a), s 78 Interpretation Act 1984 (WA), s 18, s 19
Case References:	Carnley v Hoff [1942] 1 Ch 298 In the Marriage of Bassola (No 1) (1985) FLC 91-623 In the Marriage of Hudson (1986) FLC 91-768 Northumberland v AG [1905] AC 406 Ord Forrest Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1974) 130 CLR 124 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : JOHNSON -v- STANIFORTH & ORS [2001] WASC 331 CORAM : HASLUCK J HEARD : 21 NOVEMBER 2001 DELIVERED : 10 DECEMBER 2001 FILE NO/S : CIV 1015 of 2000 BETWEEN : DONALD EDWIN JOHNSON

Plaintiff

AND

WINNIE KATIE STANIFORTH

First Defendant

WINNIE KATIE STANIFORTH

FIONA LISA STANIFORTH

Second Defendants

WINNIE KATIE STANIFORTH

Third Defendant

Catchwords:

Guardianship and Administration Act - Effect of administration order made pursuant to the Act - Person affected by order incapable of making any disposition - Whether execution of a Will can be characterised as a disposition - Preliminary issue as to meaning of "disposition" - Execution of a Will held not to be a disposition

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Guardianship and Administration Act 1990(WA),s 4, s 64(1), s 69, s 77(1)(a), s 78

Interpretation Act1984 (WA), s 18, s 19

Result:

Judgment for defendants on preliminary issue

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr K E Yin

First Defendant : Dr A F Dickey QC

Second Defendants : Dr A F Dickey QC

Third Defendant : Dr A F Dickey QC

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Frichot & Frichot

First Defendant : Halperin Fleming Meertens

Second Defendants : Halperin Fleming Meertens

Third Defendant : Halperin Fleming Meertens

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Carnley v Hoff [1942] 1 Ch 298
In the Marriage of Bassola (No 1) (1985) FLC 91-623
In the Marriage of Hudson (1986) FLC 91-768
Northumberland v AG [1905] AC 406
Ord Forrest Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1974) 130 CLR 124

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 HASLUCK J: This is a trial of a preliminary issue. The question of law for the Court to determine is whether the making of a Will constitutes a "disposition" in respect of an estate…

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 Johnson v Staniforth

Details

AGLC: Johnson v Staniforth [2001] WASC 331
Case: [2001] WASC 331
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Johnson v Staniforth, the Supreme Court of Western Australia was tasked with determining whether the execution of a Will could be characterised as a "disposition" under the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA). The plaintiff, Donald Edwin Johnson, sought to declare the third Will of the deceased, Michael Vranjican, void and of no effect, arguing that the deceased lacked testamentary capacity when he executed the Will and that an administration order had already been made, rendering him incapable of making any dispositions without the consent of the Board. The defendants, Winnie Katie Staniforth and Fiona Lisa Staniforth, argued that the execution of a Will did not constitute a disposition of property and was not affected by the administration order.

The court considered the meaning of "disposition" as it appeared in the Guardianship and Administration Act, noting that the term was not expressly defined. The court examined the ordinary meaning of the word, as well as the purpose and object of the Act, as outlined in its long title and various provisions. The court also considered the Second Reading Speech of the Guardianship and Administration Bill, which did not suggest that the Act was intended to address testamentary capacity or restrict a person's capacity to make a Will.

Ultimately, the court held that the term "disposition" in s 77(1)(a) of the Guardianship and Administration Act was confined to instruments or events that had the effect of alienating property immediately. The court found that the execution of a Will did not effect an alienation or disposition of property, as it could be revoked at any time prior to the testator's death and only took effect upon the happening of a contingency, namely, the death of the testator. The court concluded that the third Will of the deceased could not be regarded as unenforceable or having no force and effect simply because the consent of the Board to the making of such an order had not been obtained.

The court's decision leaves other issues, such as the question of whether the deceased lacked testamentary capacity at the time of the making of the second and third Wills, to be considered at the trial of the action. The court invited the parties to provide further directions concerning the ruling made in response to the preliminary issue.

Orders