Judith Evelyn Hockey v Richard Matthew Hockey and Lorraine Frances Hockey as executors and trustees of the Estate of Lloyd Roland Hockey

The case before the court involved a dispute over the distribution of the estate of Lloyd Roland Hockey. Judith Evelyn Hockey, the daughter of Lloyd, sought to challenge the executors and trustees of her father's estate, Richard Matthew Hockey and Lorraine Frances Hockey, in relation to the family provision claims. The dispute centred on the proposed conversion of interests under Lloyd's will into cash to be held on trusts by different trustees than those appointed under the will, and the court's power to approve these changes under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW). Additionally, the case examined whether the court should appoint Lloyd's former spouse, Lorraine, as a trustee for their disabled child, given that Lorraine was also a beneficiary of the estate.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the court could approve the proposed compromise as ancillary orders under section 66(2) of the Succession Act, and whether the court should appoint Lorraine as a trustee for their disabled child. The court had to consider the statutory framework provided by the Succession Act and the principles governing family provision claims, particularly in relation to disabled beneficiaries. The court also needed to assess whether Lorraine, as a beneficiary and a proposed trustee, could effectively carry out her duties without conflict of interest.

In addressing these issues, the court held that the proposed orders could not be made as ancillary orders under section 66(2) of the Succession Act because they fundamentally altered the distribution of the estate as intended by Lloyd. The court further noted that, as a matter of general policy, it would not appoint a parent as a trustee for their child due to the inherent conflict of interest. However, the court suggested that the appointment of a co-trustee might resolve this issue, provided that the proposed trustee demonstrated an understanding of the trustee's role and the purpose of the trust. The court emphasised the necessity for evidence showing that Lorraine, if appointed, could effectively discharge her duties without compromising the interests of the disabled beneficiary.

The court's final orders did not include the approval of the proposed compromise as ancillary orders and highlighted the need for clear evidence regarding the proposed trustee's understanding of their responsibilities. The court left the decision on the appointment of a co-trustee open for further consideration, pending satisfactory evidence.