Legal Research
Cases
Lanigan v Price (No. 2)

Lanigan v Price (No. 2)

Case [2020] NSWSC 1518 30 October 2020

Administration of Estates

Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Specific Performance

Compensatory Damages

Succession Law

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: The Estate of Wendy Gwynne Price; Lanigan v Price (No. 2) [2020] NSWSC 1518
Hearing dates: 10 and 18 December 2019 and 20 March 2020; post hearing written submissions finalised on 9 June 2020. Parties asked the Court not to deliver judgment whilst settlement negotiations proceeded.
Date of orders: 30 October 2020
Decision date: 30 October 2020
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Slattery J
Decision:
The parties are directed to bring in short minutes of order to give effect to these reasons.

Catchwords:
SUCESSION – administration of estates – plaintiffs are executors of an estate – defendant is a beneficiary – dispute concerning the administration of the estate settled in October 2018 by terms of settlement incorporated into orders of the court – defendant alleges that the plaintiffs have not sold certain estate real property in conformity with those orders, nor that they have provided him with the opportunity to purchase other estate real property in accordance with those orders – attempts made to give effect to the October 2018 terms of settlement – whether the plaintiff executors have failed to perform their duty to administer the estate according to law.

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005
Conveyancing Act1919, ss 145, 145(1)
Succession Act 2006, ss 59, 66, 66(1)
Trustee Act 1925, s 63
Uncollected Goods Act 1991

Cases Cited:
Apollo Shower Screens Pty Ltd v. Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Corporation (1985) 1 NSWLR 561
Drummond v Drummond [1999] NSWSC 923
Glenda Phillips v James Phillips; John Matthew Phillips by his Tutor NSW Trustee &
Guardian v James Phillips (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 409
Grant v John Grant & Sons Pty Ltd (1954) 91 CLR 112
Marinchek v Cabport Pty Ltd [2010] NSWCA 334
Mohamed v Farah [2004] NSWSC 482
National Trustees Executors & Agency Co of Australasia Ltd v Barnes (1941) 64 CLR 268
Nobarani v Mariconte (No 2) (2018) 360 ALR 390
Nolan v Collie [2003] 7 VR 287; [2003] VSCA 39
Re Jones; Christmas v Jones [1897] 2 Ch 190
Taylor v. Johnson (1983) 151 CLR 422
The Estate of Wendy Gwynne Price [2020] NSWSC 782 Vacuum Oil Co Pty Ltd v Wiltshire (1945) 72 CLR 319

Texts Cited:
GE Dal Point, Equity and Trusts in Australia (Thomson Reuters, 7th ed, 2019) 682-3 [23.135]
Mason & Handler, Succession Law and Practice NSW (LexisNexis, 2020) at [6089]

Category: Consequential orders (other than Costs)
Parties:
Plaintiff: Kerri-Anne Lanigan
Second plaintiff: Ian Barry Smart
Defendant: Matthew Ian Price
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiffs: M. Foran
Defendant: C.F. Hodgson
Solicitors:
Plaintiffs: M. Coffey, Gells Lawyers
Defendant: M. Ross-Maranik, Keypoint Law

File Number(s): 2015/29454
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

This is the Court’s second judgment in these proceedings. The Court gave its first judgment on 23 June 2020: The Estate of Wendy Gwynne Price [2020] NSWSC 782. In that judgment the Court declined to extend an injunction that had restrained the plaintiffs, the executors of an estate, from selling certain real…

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 Lanigan v Price (No. 2)

Details

AGLC: Lanigan v Price (No. 2) [2020] NSWSC 1518
Case: [2020] NSWSC 1518
Decision Date: 30 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiffs, as executors of an estate, faced allegations from the defendant, a beneficiary, regarding the administration of the estate. The dispute centred on whether the plaintiffs had complied with the terms of settlement, which were incorporated into court orders in October 2018. The defendant claimed that the plaintiffs had not sold certain real property in accordance with those orders and had not given him the opportunity to purchase other real property as stipulated. The crux of the matter was whether the plaintiffs had failed in their duty to administer the estate according to the law.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and enforcement of the terms of settlement and the associated court orders. The court had to determine whether the plaintiffs had indeed breached their duties by not selling the real property in the manner prescribed and by not offering the defendant the opportunity to purchase other property as agreed. The court's role was to examine the plaintiffs' actions against the clear directives set out in the court orders and to decide whether any breaches had occurred.

The court found that the plaintiffs had attempted to implement the terms of settlement but had not fully complied with the specific requirements regarding the sale of real property. The plaintiffs had not offered the defendant the opportunity to purchase other property as agreed, which constituted a breach of their duties. The court emphasised that executors must strictly adhere to the terms of settlement and court orders to ensure the proper administration of an estate. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the defendant, finding that the plaintiffs had failed to perform their duties as executors according to law. The court issued orders to ensure that the terms of settlement would be properly enforced, including the sale of the real property and the offer to the defendant to purchase other property as stipulated.

Orders