Laycock & Anor v Ingram & Ors - [2008] VSC 113

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

No. 5225 of 2008

IN THE MATTER of an application under Order 54 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005

and

IN THE MATTER of the will codicil and estate of MARY WESTWOOD LAYCOCK

B E T W E E N

ANDREW WALTER LAYCOCK and CHARLES WALTER LAYCOCK (who sue as executors of the will and codicil of the Deceased)	Plaintiffs
And
JEANETTE WESTWOOD INGRAM, FIONA WESTWOOD LUTH, ALISTAIR RALSTON INGRAM, ANGUS CHARLES INGRAM	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	SMITH J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	2 April 2008
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	14 April 2008
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Laycock v Ingram & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 113

---

WILL – beneficiaries with divestible interests - Instruction to distribute – Saunders v Vautier.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr W Rimmer	Charles B G Brett
For the Defendants	Mr Richard Boaden	Linton R Lethlean

HIS HONOUR:

The proceeding

By originating motion filed 18 March 2003 the plaintiffs, as executors of the will and codicil of the deceased, Mary Westwood Laycock, seek the following relief:

“The plaintiffs seek an answer to the following question which has arisen in the course of the administration of the deceased’s estate in relation to the one-third of the residue of the deceased estate held by the plaintiffs under clause 1 of the codicil dated 18 October 1994 to the will of the deceased dated 11 May 1978 (the Jeanette Ingram share):
On the true construction of the will of the deceased dated 11 May 1978 and the codicil of that will dated 18 October 1994 and having regard to the rule in Saunders v Vautier (1841) Cr and Ph 240; [1835-42] AllER 58; (1841) 41 ER 482, if the plaintiffs receive a joint direction from all of the defendants to distribute the Jeanette Ingram share to the second third and fourth defendants as tenants in common in equal shares absolutely, will the plaintiffs be obliged to comply with that direction?”

The issues

Mary Westwood Laycock was born on 26 February 1913 and died on 15 June 2005. Her husband predeceased her. She was survived by three children, Andrew Laycock (born 1940), Jeanette Ingram (born 1943) and Charles Laycock (born 1950). Jeanette Ingram is married and has three children, being her co-defendants Fiona, Alistair and Angus, who were born respectively in 1973, 1977 and 1982. They are of full age and capacity.

Pursuant to a will made 11 May 1978, Mrs Laycock left her estate to be held on trust to pay the income to her husband during his life and the remainder to be divided equally among her three children, the plaintiffs Andrew, and Charles Laycock, and the defendant Jeanette Ingram. On 18 October 1994, however, Mrs Laycock amended her will by executing a codicil. It was in the following terms:

(a)UPON TRUST to invest [Jeanette Ingram’s share] in any manner authorized by…

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 Laycock & Anor v Ingram & Ors 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: [2008] VSC 113
Decision Date: 14 April 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The court considered a dispute involving beneficiaries of a trust, Laycock and another against Ingram and others. The primary issue was whether the beneficiaries, who held divestible interests, could compel the trustees to distribute the trust property. The court examined the application of Saunders v Vautier principles, which allow beneficiaries to demand the distribution of trust property if they are sui juris and of full age, and their interests are fully vested.

The legal issues centred on the interpretation of the trust deed and the rights of beneficiaries with divestible interests. The court had to determine whether the beneficiaries' interests were fully divestible and if they had the right to instruct the trustees to distribute the trust property. The case hinged on the precise wording of the trust deed and the nature of the beneficiaries' interests.

The court concluded that the beneficiaries' interests were indeed fully vested and divestible. It found that the beneficiaries were entitled to demand the distribution of the trust property in accordance with Saunders v Vautier. The court ruled that the trustees were bound to comply with the beneficiaries' instruction to distribute the trust property. The decision affirmed the rights of beneficiaries with divestible interests to compel the distribution of trust assets.

The final orders of the court mandated the trustees to distribute the trust property to the beneficiaries as instructed. The beneficiaries were granted the right to demand the distribution, and the trustees were directed to act accordingly. The judgment provided clarity on the application of Saunders v Vautier in cases involving beneficiaries with divestible interests, reinforcing the principle that such beneficiaries can compel the distribution of trust assets.

Orders