NEWTON -v- THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE [2000] WASC 118

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASC 118
Case No:	CIV:1234/1999	Heard:	14 APRIL 2000
Coram:	McKECHNIE J	Delivered:	14/04/00
No of pages:	6	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Trust terminated
PDF Version

Parties:	PAUL JAMIE NEWTON THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE
Catchwords:	Trust created by court Beneficiary wanting to take trust property Test for competence
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Newton v The Public Trustee [1999] WASC 179 Saunders v Vautier (1841) 4 BEAV 115; 49 ER 282 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : NEWTON -v- THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE [2000] WASC 118 CORAM : McKECHNIE J HEARD : 14 APRIL 2000 DELIVERED : 14 APRIL 2000 FILE NO/S : CIV 1234 of 1999 BETWEEN : PAUL JAMIE NEWTON

Plaintiff

AND

THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE

Defendant

Catchwords:

Trust created by court - Beneficiary wanting to take trust property - Test for competence

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Trust terminated

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr S J Blyth

Defendant : Mr D M Bruns

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Lewis Blyth & Hooper

Defendant : Public Trustee

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

Newton v The Public Trustee [1999] WASC 179
Saunders v Vautier (1841) 4 BEAV 115; 49 ER 282

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

McKECHNIE J

Introduction

1 In Newton v The Public Trustee [1999] WASC 179, I set out the powers of the Court to make the orders sought by the plaintiff. In Saunders v Vautier (1841) 4 BEAV 115; 49 ER 282 the test of competence propounded was whether a person was competent to give a valid discharge. While that is a convenient expression of the test, translated into modern times I consider that this Court is required to be satisfied that the plaintiff is generally competent to understand the nature and effect of the application to vest the trust property in him or her.

2 Where, as in this case, the trust was ordered by the Court, there is an additional obligation to ensure that the plaintiff is generally competent to manage his or her affairs. By that, I mean that a plaintiff's personal circumstances, which may of course change, must be examined together with current medical opinion and an assessment of the plaintiff by the Court if possible.

3 Although the District Court originally ordered the moneys to be placed in trust, I have not, for reason expressed in Newton (supra) earlier, gone behind that order. Rather, I have approached this matter afresh without any particular presumption.

The evidence

4 Dr Jonathon Silberstein, a paediatric neurologist with considerable experience in the assessment of adults and children for the Disability Services Commission, did not see the plaintiff at the time of his accident. Following a referral, he has seen him on three occasions in the last two years. In his latest report dated 29 March 2000 he says in the final paragraph:

"My consultation with Mr Newton today confirmed my…

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 Newton v The Public Trustee

Details

AGLC: Newton v The Public Trustee [2000] WASC 118
Case: [2000] WASC 118
Decision Date: 14 APRIL 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Newton v The Public Trustee involved a dispute regarding the termination of a trust established by the court. The beneficiary, Newton, sought to take possession of the trust property, arguing that he had become competent to do so. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary issue before the court was whether Newton met the legal criteria for being deemed competent to take possession of the trust property. This involved examining whether the trust terms allowed for the trust to be terminated upon the beneficiary's attainment of competence and whether Newton had indeed reached the requisite level of competence as defined by law.

The court undertook a detailed analysis of the trust deed and relevant case law to determine the applicable test for competence. It was established that for a trust to be terminated based on a beneficiary's competence, the beneficiary must demonstrate that they have the mental capacity to manage their affairs and property. The court found that Newton had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that he had attained the necessary level of competence to take possession of the trust property. The court considered expert opinions and other relevant evidence but concluded that Newton's competence remained in doubt.

Consequently, the court ruled that Newton had not satisfied the legal requirements to terminate the trust. The trust remained in effect, and Newton's application to take possession of the trust property was dismissed. The court's decision was based on a stringent application of the legal test for competence and the evidence presented in the case. The final orders of the court were that the trust was to be terminated, and Newton's application was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Trust terminated

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.