McKeering v Rattle - [1995] QSC 75

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF QUEENSLAND

No. 1072 of 1992

Brisbane

Before the Hon. Justice White

[McKeering v. Rattle & Anor]

BETWEEN:

MARY KATHLEEN McKEERING
(Plaintiff)

AND:

ANDREW JAMES RATTLE
(First Defendant)

AND:

ANDREW JAMES RATTLE as Executor
of the Estate of Paul Murray McKeering
(Second Defendant)

JUDGMENT - WHITE J

Judgment delivered 05/05/1995

CATCHWORDS: ELDERLY MOTHER - solicitor son - disposition of property in favour of son - intention - undue influence

Counsel:Mr AJH Morris QC for the plaintiff
Mr P Hackett for the defendants

Solicitors:Gilshenan and Luton for the plaintiff
McCrea Jones for the defendants

Hearing dates: 9 - 13 May 1994

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF QUEENSLAND

No. 1072 of 1992

BETWEEN:

MARY KATHLEEN McKEERING
(Plaintiff)

AND:

ANDREW JAMES RATTLE
(First Defendant)

AND:

ANDREW JAMES RATTLE as Executor
of the Estate of Paul Murray McKeering
(Second Defendant)

JUDGMENT - WHITE J

Judgment delivered 05/05/1995

The plaintiff, Mary Kathleen McKeering, (Mrs McKeering) commenced this action by writ issued 16 July 1992 against the first defendant, Andrew Rattle, in his personal capacity and as beneficiary of the late Paul Murray McKeering's estate and against him in his capacity as executor of Paul McKeering's estate as second defendant. Mrs McKeering died on 14 July 1994 two months after the trial concluded and the action is continued in the name of her estate.
           Mrs McKeering was Paul McKeering's mother. He died on 20 April 1992. He had been a solicitor in practice in Queensland. The plaintiff alleges that Paul McKeering enjoyed Mrs McKeering's full trust and confidence, that he managed her financial affairs and advised her as her solicitor and that as a consequence obtained access to and expended her money for his own benefit and/or that of Andrew Rattle. Those benefits included purchasing real property registered in his name either alone or as co-tenant with the plaintiff or that of Andrew Rattle and certain motor vehicles. The plaintiff alleges that that property is held on trust for the plaintiff's estate or by virtue of the equitable doctrine of tracing. Alternatively, the plaintiff alleges that in procuring Mrs McKeering to draw cheques and make certain withdrawals Paul McKeering exerted undue influence on Mrs McKeering, acted unconscientiously and unjustly enriched himself and Andrew Rattle.
           By his amended defence delivered 28 January 1994 Andrew Rattle in all his capacities alleges that all of the payments were made with Mrs McKeering's full knowledge and approval. In his capacity as personal representative Andrew Rattle has counter‑claimed on a quantum meruit for time and money expended in respect of the maintenance, improvement, acquisition and sale of certain of Mrs McKeering's properties.
           In the course of these reasons I have made findings about amounts expended if it became necessary to have reference to them.
           It is convenient to set out particulars in respect of some of the persons involved in this matter:
•Mrs McKeering was born in 1907 and died on 14 July 1994, she was the mother of six…

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 McKeering v Rattle

Details

AGLC: McKeering v Rattle [1995] QSC 75
Case: [1995] QSC 75
Decision Date: 5 May 1995

CaseChat Overview and Summary

McKeering v Rattle involved a legal dispute between Mary Kathleen McKeering and Andrew James Rattle, with the latter in both personal and executor capacities for the estate of Paul Murray McKeering. The plaintiff, Mrs McKeering, alleged that her son, Paul, exerted undue influence over her, leading to financial transactions that benefited him and Mr Rattle. These transactions included the purchase of real property and motor vehicles. The defendants denied these allegations, asserting that all payments were made with Mrs McKeering's full knowledge and consent. The court was tasked with determining whether undue influence was exercised and if so, to what extent, and to what properties or funds the plaintiff was entitled.

The court examined the nature of the relationship between Mrs McKeering and her son, Paul, as well as the circumstances surrounding the financial transactions. It found that Mrs McKeering had indeed intended to benefit Paul significantly, given his substantial contributions to her and her husband. However, the court concluded that Paul took advantage of his position as a solicitor to improperly register himself as co-owner of certain properties, which was not in line with his mother's intentions. The court further determined that undue influence was exerted in respect of payments made for Paul's benefit, but not in relation to the properties and their renovations.

Ultimately, the court ordered the second defendant to pay the plaintiff a specific sum, along with interest, and directed the plaintiff to pay certain storage costs. The court also granted liberty to apply for any other necessary orders based on the judgment and invited submissions regarding costs.

Orders