Judgment in favour of the plaintiffs Orders given the precise terms of which to be the subject of further submissions
B
PDF Version
Parties:
JANICE DAW KOH RONDA MAY JAMIESON DELMA KAY PATEMAN in Her Personal Capacity DELMA KAYE PATEMAN in Her Capacity as Executor and Trustee of the Estate of EDNAH DAW
Catchwords:
Contract Wills and estates Deed of sale and co-ownership of real property inter vivos Parties to the Deed were testator and beneficiaries under a Will Death of party to Deed Partition Property Law Act s 126 Remaining parties to the Deed equal beneficiaries and one an executor Obligations as executor Construction of Deed Extrinsic evidence Abandonment and termination of Deed Estoppel by conduct Estoppel by convention Equitable damages Pre-judgment interest Section 32 of Supreme Court Act
[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 Koh v Pateman
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Koh v Pateman [2005] WASC 172
Case
[2005] WASC 172
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This case concerns a dispute over the sale of a family property and the distribution of the proceeds from that sale. The plaintiffs, Janice and Ronda, are the daughters of Ednah, who had sold the property to Ronda and Delma under a Deed of Sale and Co-ownership. After Ednah's death, Ronda sold her interest in the property to Delma, who later sold it to a third party. The plaintiffs claim that Delma is obligated to share one-third of the proceeds from the sale with Ednah's estate. The court found in favour of the plaintiffs and held that Delma was indeed obligated to share the proceeds from the sale of the property with Ednah's estate. The court further held that there was no estoppel preventing the plaintiffs from claiming the proceeds, and that there was no right of set-off for improvements made to the property. The court ordered Delma to account for any profits made from the use of the proceeds and to pay interest on the amount owed to the estate.