Legal Research
Cases
Northey v Juul

Northey v Juul

Case [2008] NSWSC 275 1 April 2008

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Northey v Juul [2008] NSWSC 275

HEARING DATE(S): 20/08/07 - 23/08/07. 03/12/07

JUDGMENT DATE :
1 April 2008

JURISDICTION: Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF: Macready AsJ at 1

CATCHWORDS: Succession - Executors and Administrators - Proceedings against executors. Accounting on basis of wilful default. Nature of just allowances. Allowance to executors of just allowance for work done by one executor's husband during lifetime of deceased.

PARTIES: Henry John Northey v Jennifer Frances Juul and James Knight Northey (Estate of the late Betty Frances Northey)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 4408/2004

COUNSEL: Mr J Wilson SC and Miss R Winfield for plaintiff
Mr R Lovas for 1st defendant
Ms J Baxter for 2nd defendant

SOLICITORS: Delwyn A Bishop for plaintiff
Wood Marshall Willams for lst defendant
Small Business Legal Services for 2nd defendant

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Compensation Court

- 1 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

Associate Justice Macready

Tuesday 1 April 2008

4408/04 - Henry John Northey v Jennifer Frances Juul and James Knight Northey (Estate of the late Betty Frances Northey)

JUDGMENT NO 2

1 His Honour: On 16 September 2005 I gave judgment in these proceedings and ordered that there be an accounting by the defendants as executors of the late Betty Francis Northey. As I mentioned in my judgment in the earlier proceedings the hearing concerned the proper administration of the estate of the late Betty Frances Northey who died on 7 December 2003 aged 90 years. Her husband died in 1996 and the deceased was then left with a large run down house and some unused tennis courts. She decided to stay in the house and to subdivide the tennis courts in order to provide, in part, the funds needed to renovate her house.

2 The renovations were done with the help of her daughter, Jennifer Juul, the first defendant and her husband who was a former builder. Mr and Mrs Juul were to pay all the costs of the subdivision and to receive one block in the subdivision for their efforts. Over the ensuing years three blocks were sold and the funds received were used in part to renovate the deceased’s house.

3 The deceased had seven children and she treated them equally under her will. The defendants, two of her children, are the Executors. As I mentioned in my judgment she appears not to have told some them of the arrangements she had made with Mrs Juul and her husband and this has unfortunately split the family after her death. The plaintiff, one of the deceased’s children, brings these proceedings on his behalf as well as two of his sisters and a brother.

4 In the proceedings the plaintiff, Mr Henry John Northey, asked the court to order the taking of accounts in the estate of the deceased and he suggested that this accounting be on the basis of Mrs Juul’s and her co-Executor’s wilful default in getting in the estate of the deceased. The estate, which he said was…

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 Northey v Juul

Details

AGLC: Northey v Juul [2008] NSWSC 275
Case: [2008] NSWSC 275
Decision Date: 1 April 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Northey v Juul involved a dispute between the plaintiffs, who were the residuary legatees, and the defendants, the executors of the estate of the deceased. The plaintiffs sought an accounting from the executors, claiming that one of the executors had misused the estate's assets by using them for his own benefit, and that the executors had failed to properly manage the estate. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the executors were entitled to a just allowance for work done by one of the executor's husband during the lifetime of the deceased, and whether this allowance could be considered in the accounting proceedings. The court was required to determine the nature of just allowances and whether they could be claimed by the executors in these circumstances. The plaintiffs argued that the executors had not been entitled to any allowance, as the work done by the husband was not for the benefit of the estate, but rather for his own benefit.

The court found that the executors were not entitled to a just allowance for the work done by one of the executor's husband. The court held that the work done by the husband was not for the benefit of the estate, and therefore could not be considered as work done by the executors in their capacity as such. The court further held that the executors had not been able to show that the work done by the husband was necessary or beneficial to the estate, and that any allowance claimed would have to be based on wilful default. The court ordered that the executors provide an accounting to the plaintiffs on the basis of wilful default, and that no just allowance be paid to the executors.

Orders