Legal Research
Cases
Martin v Martin

Martin v Martin

Case [2010] NSWSC 700 30 June 2010

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Martin v Martin [2010] NSWSC 700

HEARING DATE(S): 9/12/09; 28/05/10

JUDGMENT DATE :
30 June 2010

JURISDICTION: Equity

JUDGMENT OF: White J

DECISION: Stand the matter down for the Minister to be served and for counsel to bring in short minutes of order.

CATCHWORDS: SUCCESSION – where testator bequeathed farm to plaintiff – on construction of will whether bequest of property included water licence – admissibility of surrounding circumstances to construe will – where water licence initially granted under Water Act 1912 – where new statutory regime under Water Management Act 2000 replaced licence entitlements under Water Act 1912 – construction of statutory entitlements of testator and plaintiff under Water Act 1912 and Water Management Act 2000 – meaning of “occupier”

LEGISLATION CITED: Water Management Act 2000 (NSW)
Water Act 1912 (NSW)
Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW)
Probate and Administration Act 1898 (NSW)

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Elders Rural Finance Limited v Westpac Banking Corporation (1989) 6 BPR 13,439
Water Administration Ministerial Corporation; In re McLure (1995) 88 LGERA 278
O’Keefe and Water Administration Ministerial Corporation [2010] NSWLEC 9
Abernethy v Simpson [2007] NSWSC 186
McBride v Hudson (1962) 107 CLR 604
Castle v Fox (1871) LR 11 Eq 542
Perrin v Morgan [1943] AC 399

TEXTS CITED: D Haines, Construction of Wills in Australia (2007) LexisNexis Butterworths
R Geddes, C Rowland & P Studdert, Wills, Probate and Administration Law in New South Wales (1996) LBC

PARTIES: Plaintiff: Arthur Ross Martin
Defendant: Lois Kathleen Martin

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2009/288742

COUNSEL: Plaintiff: S V Shepherd
Defendant: A J McInerney

SOLICITORS: Plaintiff: Creaghe Lisle Solicitors
Defendant: Walsh & Blair Lawyers

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

White J

Wednesday, 30 June 2010

2009/288742 Arthur Ross Martin v Lois Kathleen Martin

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: This case concerns the beneficial ownership of a water access licence held under the Water Management Act 2000 (NSW).

2 Until his death on 24 January 2008, Stuart Peter Martin (“the deceased”) was the owner of a farm known as Narooma near Wagga Wagga. Narooma is a property of about 520 acres with river frontage. The property was used for grazing cattle and growing crops. No one lived on the property. The plaintiff is the deceased’s son. From the age of 17 the plaintiff worked with his father on the Narooma property. In 1973 the plaintiff and his mother purchased another property called Cooinda. The plaintiff and the deceased worked the Cooinda and Narooma properties together. They were not partners. After the plaintiff’s mother died in December 1982 the plaintiff became the sole registered proprietor of Cooinda by survivorship. The plaintiff and the deceased each owned his separate cattle which were tagged. Both properties were used in raising the cattle. Some of the plaintiff’s cattle would graze on the Narooma property. The deceased’s cattle would graze on the Cooinda property.

3 The deceased remarried. The defendant is his widow. On 19 August 2002 the deceased made a will by which he appointed the…

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 Martin v Martin

Details

AGLC: Martin v Martin [2010] NSWSC 700
Case: [2010] NSWSC 700
Decision Date: 30 June 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute between the parties arose from the interpretation of a will, which bequeathed a farm to the plaintiff, Martin, but did not explicitly mention the water licence associated with the farm. The will's ambiguity regarding the inclusion of the water licence necessitated a court decision on the matter. The court was required to determine whether the water licence, initially granted under the Water Act 1912, was part of the estate left to the plaintiff. Additionally, the court had to consider the implications of the new statutory regime under the Water Management Act 2000, which replaced the entitlements under the Water Act 1912, on the interpretation of the will.

The court addressed the issue by examining the surrounding circumstances and the language of the will to ascertain the testator's intention. It was crucial to interpret whether the term "occupier" in the will included the water licence. The court considered the statutory definitions and the changes brought about by the Water Management Act 2000, which affected the entitlements and rights of the parties involved. The court concluded that the water licence was indeed part of the estate bequeathed to the plaintiff, based on the surrounding circumstances and the testator's intent to provide the plaintiff with a complete and operational farm.

The court's reasoning was grounded in the principles of statutory interpretation and the context in which the will was executed. It held that the term "occupier" in the will encompassed the water licence, which was integral to the farm's operation. The court's decision was influenced by the statutory changes and the practical implications of the water licence for the farm's management. The outcome was that the water licence was part of the estate left to the plaintiff, ensuring that the farm remained fully operational and beneficial to the plaintiff as intended by the testator.

The court ordered that the water licence associated with the farm be included in the estate bequeathed to the plaintiff. This decision ensured that the plaintiff could continue to operate the farm in accordance with the testator's wishes, maintaining the farm's integrity and value.

Orders