Kelly v Perpetual Trustee Co (Ltd) - [1963] HCA 23

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Dixon C.J., Taylor and Menzies JJ.

KELLY v. PERPETUAL TRUSTEE CO. (LTD.)

(1963) 109 CLR 258

26 July 1963

Settlements

Settlements—Respective rights of life tenant and remaindermen—Stocks of surplus tin accumulated by smelting business carried on by trustees—Sale for purpose of winding up business—Profits on sale of surplus tin—Capital or income.

Decision

July 26.
THE COURT delivered the following written judgment:-
Here, notwithstanding the omission from the first codicil to his will of particular directions which it seems that the testator intended to give to his executor and trustee - the Perpetual Trustee Company (Limited) which we shall call "the Trustee Company" - concerning the holding during the lives of his children of the shares in his residuary estate which by his will he simply directed to be held in trust for them in equal shares, it does appear to have been intended that each child should have a life estate only in what is nevertheless described as "his or her share of corpus", and that upon the death of each child his or her share of corpus should be held for remaindermen viz. children or other issue as appointed or, in default of appointment, for children in equal shares with substitutional gifts to issue in case of death and with gifts over in default of issue. It is not necessary to describe the remaindermen with any greater precision because all we are concerned with here is whether the distributable share of a particular fund - which answers the general description of part of the share of the estate to which the testator's son William Henry became entitled for life - should be paid to his daughter, the appellant Mary Wentworth Kelly, as the person entitled according to the testator's ultimate dispositions of the corpus of that share; or, as income of the estate of the testator, to the estate of his son, William Henry Kelly deceased, he having died in 1960 and the Supreme Court, by an order - which although unchallenged seems difficult to justify - having appointed respondent Daphne May Johnson, the sole residuary beneficiary under his will, to represent the estate for the purposes of the suit in which the decree appealed from was made. (at p265)

2. Before going any further, however, it is worth observing that this question between life tenant and remainderman arises because by the first codicil to his will the testator reduced the estates previously given to his children to life estates and not from any particular direction that the Trustee Company should pay the children no more than the income or profits of the shares given to them - a direction which would perhaps entail an enquiry whether the testator attached any special meaning to the words "income" or "profits". As life tenant the son William Henry was by law entitled to receive all profits accruing during his life tenancy and it seems that the particular direction to the Trustee Company in the first codicil "that…

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 Kelly v Perpetual Trustee Co (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: [1963] HCA 23
Decision Date: 26 July 1963

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Kelly v Perpetual Trustee Co (Ltd)* concerned a dispute between the plaintiff, Kelly, and the defendant, Perpetual Trustee Co (Ltd), regarding the administration of a trust. The specific nature of the dispute involved allegations of breach of trust and a claim for an account of profits. The matter was heard before Dixon C.J., Taylor and Menzies JJ.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the trustee had acted in breach of its fiduciary duties in managing the trust assets, and if so, what remedies were available to the beneficiary. This included determining the extent of the trustee's obligations and whether its actions had resulted in any unauthorised profits or losses to the trust estate.

The court's reasoning focused on the established principles of trust law, particularly the duties of a trustee to act with due diligence, loyalty, and in the best interests of the beneficiaries. The judges examined the specific actions taken by Perpetual Trustee Co (Ltd) in relation to the trust assets, assessing whether these actions were within the scope of its powers and whether they constituted a failure to exercise reasonable care and skill. The court applied the legal principles governing fiduciary obligations and the consequences of their breach, considering the appropriate measure of damages or account of profits where a breach was found.

Orders