Lorenz v McGreevy

Case [2022] QDC 212


DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: 

Lorenz v McGreevy & Anor [2022] QDC 212

PARTIES:

FIONA FAYE LORENZ AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF BADEN MARK JUST

(Applicant)

v

BRENDA MAE MCGREEVY

(First Respondent)

And
PETER MCGREEVY

(Second Respondent)

FILE NO:

D42/19

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application for a Direction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Toowoomba

DELIVERED ON:

21 September 2022

DELIVERED AT:

District Court at Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

31 August 2022

JUDGE:

Loury KC DCJ

ORDER:

1.   The application for a Beddoe Order is dismissed;

2.   The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of that application;

3.   Leave is given to file a further amended claim;

4.   Costs of the application to file a further amended claim are reserved.

CATCHWORDS:

EQUITY – TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES – APPLICATIONS TO COURT FOR ADVICE AND AUTHORITY – JURISDICTION – application to obtain directions from the Court – whether the court has jurisdiction – whether the parties are able to consent to the jurisdiction of the court pursuant to section 72 of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld)

LEGISLATION:

District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld) s 68(1)(b)(vii), s 69, s 72

Trusts Act 1973 (Qld) s 96.

CASES:

Fenton-Anderson & Anor v Power & Anor (No 3) [2020] QDC 317
Glassock v The Trust Company (Australia) Pty Ltd [2012] QSC 15
Matelot Holdings Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council [1993] 2 Qd R 168
McLean v Burns Philp Trustee Co Pty Ltd (1985) 2 NSWLR 623

Salmi & Anor v Sinivuori & Anor [2008] QSC 321

COUNSEL:

P Travers for the applicant

A Fraser for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

Edgar & Wood Solicitors for the applicant
Murdoch Lawyers for the respondents

  1. The Deceased, Baden Just died on 21 March 2018.  He is survived by his four daughters, Ms Fiona Lorenz, the applicant; Ms Brenda McGreevy, the First Respondent; Ms Barbara Thompson; and, Ms Angela Just-McKnight.  He left a last Will dated 1 March 2018 admitted to probate on 3 February 2022 that included the following gifts:

    (1)He left his farm machinery, plant and equipment to the First Respondent and Second Respondent (the First Respondent’s husband);

    (2)He left his 1957 Land Rover to the First and Second Respondent;

    (3)He left a sum of $20,000 to each of the applicant and Ms Angela Just-McKnight;

    (4)He left a sum of $6,000 to Barbara;

    (5)He left the residue of his estate to the applicant, First Respondent and Ms Angela Just-McKnight. 

  2. Clause 7 of the Will stated as follows:

    (1)I EXPRESSLY declare that I have dealt with my real property by way of addition of [the First Respondent] and [the Second Respondent] as joint tenants on all lots within my lifetime to enable them to continue their farming operations in the future.  It is not my intention that my other daughters be compensated by [the First Respondent] and [the Second Respondent] or from my estate in addition to their current entitlement for any share for the value of such property. 

  3. The applicant is the executor of the Will.…

Continue reading Lorenz v McGreevy

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Lorenz v McGreevy [2022] QDC 212
Case
[2022] QDC 212
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Lorenz v McGreevy, the parties were engaged in a dispute concerning a trust and the authority of the court to provide directions. The case was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The applicant sought a Beddoe Order to compel the respondent to provide information, but the respondents argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to grant such an order.

The central legal issues before the court were whether it possessed the jurisdiction to grant the Beddoe Order and whether the parties could consent to the court's jurisdiction under section 72 of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld). The court considered the relevant provisions of the Act and the nature of the Beddoe Order, ultimately determining that it did not have the jurisdiction to grant the order as requested. The court also found that the parties could not consent to the jurisdiction of the court in this instance.

The court dismissed the application for a Beddoe Order and ordered the applicant to pay the respondents' costs for that application. However, the court did grant leave to file a further amended claim and reserved costs of the application to file the amended claim. This decision highlights the importance of carefully considering jurisdictional matters when seeking court orders in the context of trusts and trustees.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for a Beddoe Order is dismissed;

2. The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of that application;

3. Leave is given to file a further amended claim;

4. Costs of the application to file a further amended claim are reserved.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.