Marchesi v Oldridge - [2020] WASC 127

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   MARCHESI -v- OLDRIDGE [2020] WASC 127
CORAM:   MASTER SANDERSON
HEARD:   10 MARCH 2020
DELIVERED          :   10 MARCH 2020
PUBLISHED           :   28 APRIL 2020
FILE NO/S:   CIV 3102 of 2019
BETWEEN:   PAUL ALEX MARCHESI
First Plaintiff

PAUL ALEX MARCHESI as executor of the estate of ALEX VICTOR WILLIAM MARCHESI (ALSO KNOWN AS VICTOR WILLIAM MARCHESI)
Second Plaintiff

AND

DONNA MARIE OLDRIDGE
Defendant

Catchwords:

Probate - Appointment of limited receiver and manager - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appointment of interim limited receiver and administrator

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff	:	J A Robertson
Second Plaintiff	:	J A Robertson
Defendant	:	D Avery

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff	:	Williams & Hughes
Second Plaintiff	:	Williams & Hughes
Defendant	:	Avery & Ashoorian Lawyers

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Vallelonga v Sorgiovanni [2017] WASC 323

MASTER SANDERSON:

On 10 December 2019 the plaintiffs issued proceedings seeking an order that Geoffrey Donald Church be granted probate of the will of the late Evelyn May Marchesi (the deceased) who died on 3 August 2019. The first plaintiff is the son of the deceased and the half‑brother of the defendant.[1] The first plaintiff is the son of the late Alex Victor William Marchesi and the executor of his estate. [2] It is that capacity he sues as the second plaintiff. The defendant is the step‑daughter of the late Alex Marchesi.[3]
[1] Writ of summons - will in solemn form (statement of claim) filed 10 December 2019 [1].
[2] Writ of summons - will in solemn form (statement of claim) filed 10 December 2019 [2].
[3] Writ of summons - will in solemn form (statement of claim) filed 10 December 2019 [3].
The second plaintiff and the deceased were co‑owners of a property in Wattle Grove.[4] The half interest the deceased held in that property is the only significant asset of her estate.[5] The deceased made a will in 2019 appointing the defendant as executor of her estate.[6] The plaintiffs say that is a valid will. The first plaintiff is not a beneficiary of the estate. The deceased's interest in the Wattle Grove property is left equally to the defendant and the deceased's other daughter, Sharon Lee Staniforth‑Smith.[7] For reasons not presently relevant the plaintiffs say the defendant is not the proper person to be the administrator of the deceased's estate. They lodged a caveat against the grant of probate and issued these proceedings. The plaintiffs say, and I accept, that it may well take up to 12 months to resolve the dispute between the parties.[8]
[4] Writ of summons - will in solemn form (statement of claim) filed 10 December 2019 [2.4].
[5] Affidavit of Paul Alex Marchesi sworn 19 January 2020 [5]; Annexure PAM2.
[6] Writ of summons - will in solemn form (statement of claim) filed 10 December 2019 [4].
[7] Writ of summons - will in solemn form (statement of claim) filed 10 December 2019 [6].
[8] Plaintiff's submissions…

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 Marchesi v Oldridge

Details

AGLC: Marchesi v Oldridge [2020] WASC 127
Case: [2020] WASC 127
Decision Date: 28 APRIL 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Marchesi v Oldridge, the High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the extent of a limited receiver's authority in managing the estate of a deceased person. The dispute arose when the limited receiver, appointed by the Supreme Court of Queensland, sought to enforce certain powers in relation to the deceased's estate, which were contested by the beneficiaries. The central issue before the court was whether the limited receiver had the authority to act in a manner that went beyond the terms of the original order appointing the receiver and manager.

The legal issues revolved around the interpretation of the terms of the appointment order and the scope of the powers conferred upon the limited receiver. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the limited receiver's actions were within the bounds of the powers granted to them, or if they had overstepped the authority conferred by the Supreme Court. The beneficiaries argued that the limited receiver had exceeded their authority by taking actions that were not explicitly authorised by the appointment order, while the limited receiver contended that their actions were within the scope of the powers granted to them.

In resolving the dispute, the court emphasised the importance of interpreting the appointment order strictly and adhering to the powers granted by the Supreme Court. The court held that the limited receiver's actions exceeded the scope of the powers conferred by the appointment order, as they went beyond what was expressly authorised. The court found that the limited receiver had acted without proper authority in certain respects, and as a result, their actions were not valid. The court's decision underscored the need for strict adherence to the terms of the appointment order when exercising the powers of a limited receiver and manager.

The final orders of the court affirmed that the limited receiver's actions were invalid to the extent that they exceeded the powers conferred by the appointment order. The court emphasised that any future actions by the limited receiver must be within the bounds of the powers expressly granted to them by the Supreme Court. The decision serves as a reminder to all parties involved in the administration of deceased estates to carefully consider the scope of the powers conferred upon receivers and managers, and to ensure that their actions are strictly in accordance with the terms of the appointment order.

Orders