Mitchell v Cauchi - [2025] NSWSC 294

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Mitchell v Cauchi [2025] NSWSC 294
Hearing dates: On the papers.
Date of orders: 31 March 2025
Decision date: 31 March 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Slattery J
Decision:
As applied to the bank accounts of the deceased, the expression “further assets” in the 2018 settlement should be construed as referring to only the marginal difference between the quantum of the debt stated in the inventory of property and the quantum of the debt discovered in those accounts after the 2018 settlement. No costs order made.

Catchwords:
SUCCESSION – Executors and administrators – Proceedings against executors and administrators – Application for removal – administrators of two estates in contest concerning the proper accounting between the two estates – earlier proceedings in relation to the accounting between the two estates were settled in 2018 upon terms including a formula that a percentage of “further assets” discovered after the settlement as belonging to one of the estates and not disclosed in the inventory of assets lodged with the probate of that estate, would be paid to the administrator of the other estate – issue arises as to how the terms of the formula for determining “further assets” should be interpreted – how the formula applies to the finding of more cash in a bank account – whether in calculating the payments to be made under the formula the assets declared in the probate inventory should be deducted before the percentage is applied.

Legislation Cited:
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 r 54.3(2)(a).

Cases Cited:
Cherry v Steele Park (2017) 96 NSWLR 548; [2017] NSWCA 295 at [72]
Electricity Generation Corporation v Woodside Energy Ltd (2014) 251 CLR 640; [2014] HCA 7 at [35].
Kooee Communications Pty Limited v Primus Telecommunications Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 5 at [27]

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Milo Mitchell (Plaintiff)
William Cauchi (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
S K Hill (Plaintiff)
M Waters (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Mistry Fallahi (Plaintiff)
APlus Legal (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2024/169228
Publication restriction: N/A

JUDGMENT

Each of the plaintiff, Mr Milo Mitchell, and the defendant, Mr William Cauchi, is the legal personal representative of an estate of a deceased person. Litigation between those two estates was settled and reflected in consent orders of this Court made on 12 September 2018 ("the September 2018 orders"). A dispute has now risen between these legal personal representatives about the proper final accounting between the two estates arising out of differing interpretations of a term in the September 2018 orders.
The plaintiff commenced the present proceedings in 2024 seeking relief against the defendant as administrator of one of these two estates. They have since been case managed in the probate list. After dealing with various land development issues, the Court isolated the present issue for determination under the mechanism provided for in Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (“UCPR”) r 54.3(2)(a). The question for determination arises in the administration of both these estates. These reasons resolve that question.
Ms S Hill of…

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 Mitchell v Cauchi

Details

AGLC: Mitchell v Cauchi [2025] NSWSC 294
Case: [2025] NSWSC 294
Decision Date: 31 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Mitchell v Cauchi, the court was presented with a dispute between the administrators of two separate estates concerning the proper accounting and division of assets following a settlement of previous proceedings in 2018. The settlement included a formula stipulating that a percentage of any "further assets" discovered after the settlement and not disclosed in the inventory of assets lodged with the probate of one estate, would be paid to the administrator of the other estate. The issue at hand was the interpretation of this formula, specifically in relation to a sum of cash found in a bank account. The central question was whether, in calculating the payments to be made under the formula, the assets already declared in the probate inventory should be deducted before the percentage is applied.

The court was tasked with interpreting the terms of the formula as agreed upon in the 2018 settlement. This required an analysis of the language used in the settlement agreement and a determination of the parties' intentions in using specific terms. The court had to consider whether the phrase "further assets" included only those assets not previously disclosed, or if it encompassed all assets found after the settlement, regardless of whether they were previously declared. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the assets declared in the probate inventory should be deducted before applying the percentage stipulated in the formula.

In interpreting the settlement agreement, the court found that the term "further assets" referred to assets that were not disclosed in the inventory lodged with the probate of the estate. The court further held that the assets declared in the probate inventory should be deducted before applying the percentage stipulated in the formula. This interpretation was based on a contextual understanding of the terms used and the overall purpose of the settlement, which was to ensure a fair division of assets between the two estates. The court concluded that the administrators should apply the formula by first deducting the assets declared in the probate inventory from the total assets found and then applying the agreed percentage to the remaining assets.

As a result of the court's interpretation, the administrators were directed to follow the specified process in calculating the payments under the formula. The final orders of the court provided clarity on the application of the formula, ensuring that the administrators could proceed with the settlement terms in a manner consistent with the court's interpretation. This decision provided the necessary guidance to the parties, allowing them to resolve the dispute concerning the proper accounting between the two estates.

Orders