Nydegger v McKenzie

Link copied
Case Copied 33 min read
CITATION: NYDEGGER V. McKENZIE & ANOR. [2001] NSWCA 393
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 41041/00
HEARING DATE(S): 25 September 2001
JUDGMENT DATE:
15 November 2001

PARTIES :


Olivia Pearl Nydegger - appellant
Therese Violette McKenzie - first respondent
Colin McKenzie - second respondend
JUDGMENT OF: Sheller JA at 1; Beazley JA at 2; Hodgson JA at 3
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Supreme Court
LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) :
ED4738/99
LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :
Bergin J
COUNSEL: Mr. A.J. McInnes QC with Ms. N. Butler for appellant
Mr. J. Sexton SC with Mr. W. Bradford for respondents
SOLICITORS: Kenneth Harrison, Bondi Junction for appellant
Booth Brown Samuels & Olney for respondents
CATCHWORDS: EQUITY - Estoppel - Maxims - "He who seeks equity must do equity" - Daughter benefit of trust of property subject to life interest in mother - Rift between mother and daughter - Whether daughter as condition of relief should make some provision in mother's favour. D.
CASES CITED:
Flinn v. Flinn [1999] 3 VR 712
Sander v. Twigg (1887) 13 VLR 765 at 785
Malton v. Black, Young J, 26/5/86
Constanton v. Permanent Trustee Australia Limited, Young J, 13/6/91
Nieborak v. Piper, Young J, 11/12/90
DECISION: See par.62 of judgment

    IN THE SUPREME COURT
    OF NEW SOUTH WALES
    COURT OF APPEAL
    CA 41041/00
    ED 4378/99

SHELLER JA


BEAZLEY JA


HODGSON JA


    Thursday 15th November 2001

    NYDEGGER V. McKENZIE & ANOR.
    Judgment

: I agree with the reasons of Hodgson JA as set out below.

: I also agree with Hodgson JA.

On 15th December 2000, Bergin J made orders to the effect that, subject to certain conditions, Olivia Nydegger held her interest in four farm properties near Dubbo and certain associated assets on trust for her daughter Therese McKenzie, and also made certain consequential orders. We are dealing with an appeal from those orders. For convenience, I will generally refer to the parties and their relatives by forenames.


    BACKGROUND CIRCUMSTANCES

4 Olivia was born in 1918. She married Marcel Nydegger, and there were four children of the marriage: Robert, Leon, Christine, and Therese, the youngest born 25th October 1953. Therese married Colin McKenzie in 1975, and there are three children of that marriage: Grahame and Matthew, both in their twenties, and Max who is about twelve.

5 In 1977, Marcel retired from practice as a dentist, and from about that time Marcel and Olivia established a cattle stud in partnership with Michael and Robin Fraser at the Frasers’ property “Toonga” at Tarcutta.

6 In 1986, Therese and Colin were living on a five acre property at Pitt Town. In that year, the property “Warrawong” near Dubbo was purchased by Therese and Colin as joint tenants as to one half share and Olivia as to the other half share, as tenants in common. The price was $226,000.00. About $126,000.00 was provided by Olivia, and the balance by Therese and Colin: this balance was provided through bridging finance until they sold the Pitt Town property. Therese and Colin then moved to…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Nydegger v McKenzie and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2001] NSWCA 393
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Nydegger v McKenzie* concerned a dispute between a mother and daughter regarding a property held on trust for the daughter, subject to a life interest retained by the mother. A significant rift had developed between the parties. The daughter sought equitable relief concerning the trust property.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales was whether the daughter, as a condition of receiving equitable relief, should be required to make some provision in favour of her mother, invoking the equitable maxim "he who seeks equity must do equity."

The Court considered the application of the maxim in the context of the parties' relationship and the nature of the trust. It was held that the maxim could be invoked to ensure fairness and prevent a party from obtaining equitable relief while acting inequitably towards the other party in relation to the subject matter of the dispute. The court's reasoning focused on the need for the daughter to act equitably towards her mother, particularly given the mother's retained life interest and the breakdown in their relationship.

The Court of Appeal made orders in the matter, the specifics of which are detailed in paragraph 62 of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See par.62 of judgment

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.