Official Receiver in Bankruptcy v Schultz

Link copied
Case Copied 22 min read

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Mason C.J., Brennan, Deane, Dawson and Gaudron JJ.

OFFICIAL RECEIVER IN BANKRUPTCY v. SCHULTZ

(1990) 170 CLR 306

8 November 1990

Bankruptcy—Administration of Assets—Testator's Family Maintenance (Q.)

Bankruptcy—Property of bankrupt—Property divisible amongst creditors—Devise of land to bankrupt—Family provision order giving entire interest in land to applicant—Subsequent discharge of bankrupt—Order on appeal varying provision order—Reduction of applicant's provision to life interest—Whether remainder vested in Official Receiver—Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth),ss. 5(1) "property", 58(1). Administration of Assets—Deceased estate—Land held on trust for devisee—Unadministered estate—Nature of devisee's interest—Family provision order—Effect on devisee's interest—Succession Act 1981 (Q.), s.41. Testator's Family Maintenance (Q.)—Order for provision—Effect—Succession Act 1981 (Q.), s.41.

Decision


MASON C.J., BRENNAN, DEANE, DAWSON AND GAUDRON JJ. Elaine Ethel Pereira died on 18 June 1987. By her will, she provided:
"3. I GIVE DEVISE AND BEQUEATH the whole of my real and personal estate whatsoever and wheresoever situate UNTO AND TO THE USE of my Trustees UPON the following trusts that is to say:- (a) As to my personal belongings and effects and my jewellery or clothing of which I may die possessed ... for ... MERLE HEATHER SCHULTZ;
... (g) As to the house and contents at 43 Renton Street, Camp Hill, Brisbane ... to the said MERLE HEATHER SCHULTZ."
Merle Heather Schultz and her husband were the executors of Mrs Pereira's estate and are the respondents to this appeal. On 11 March 1985, Mrs Schultz had been declared bankrupt under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) and a sequestration order had been made against her estate.

2. After Mrs Pereira's death, her husband made an application for provision out of her estate pursuant to s.41 of the Succession Act 1981 (Q.). That application was successful. On 26 July 1988, Moynihan J. directed that the will "be read and construed as though the name SHELTON CLEMENT PEREIRA appeared in Clause 3(g) thereof instead of the name MERLE HEATHER SCHULTZ".

3. On 20 September 1988, Mrs Schultz was discharged from bankruptcy. Shortly afterwards, on 8 December 1988, the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland allowed an appeal by the executors against the order of Moynihan J. and varied that order by deleting its operative words and directing instead that the will "be read and construed as though clause 3(g) thereof read: 'As to the house and contents at 43 Renton Street ... for Shelton Clement Pereira for his life and after his death for Merle Heather Schultz absolutely'".

4. The question which arises for determination in this appeal, brought by the Official Receiver in Bankruptcy, is whether the interest of Mrs Schultz described in the order of the Full Court formed part of her bankrupt estate.

5. At first instance, Cooper J. held that Mrs Schultz had no beneficial interest at any time in any of the assets of the estate, simply a chose in action entitling her to enforce the administration of the estate. That chose in action had been vested in the Official Receiver. His…
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Official Receiver in Bankruptcy v Schultz 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
[1990] HCA 45
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered a dispute between the Official Receiver in Bankruptcy and the respondent, who was the applicant in family provision proceedings concerning a deceased estate. The core of the dispute concerned the nature of the respondent's interest in a devise of land, which had been subject to both bankruptcy proceedings and a family provision order.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the respondent's interest in the devised land, following a variation of a family provision order, constituted "property" divisible amongst creditors under the *Bankruptcy Act 1966* (Cth), and specifically whether the remainder interest in the land, after the respondent was granted a life interest, vested in the Official Receiver. The Court also had to determine the effect of a family provision order made under the *Succession Act 1981* (Qld) on the unadministered interest of a devisee in a deceased estate.

The High Court reasoned that the family provision order, even as varied, operated to divest the respondent of the full beneficial interest in the land, granting him only a life interest. The remainder interest, therefore, did not vest in the Official Receiver as part of the bankrupt's divisible property. The Court held that the interest of a beneficiary in an unadministered estate is a chose in action, and the family provision order effectively determined the extent of that interest. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the orders of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland were set aside and replaced with orders dismissing the appeal to that Court, with costs to be paid out of the deceased estate.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed.

Order that the costs of the appellant of the appeal and the costs of the respondents of and incidental to the appeal be paid out of the deceased estate.

Set aside the orders of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland.

In lieu thereof,

1. order that the appeal to that Court be dismissed;

2. order that the costs of the appellant of that appeal and the costs of the respondents of and incidental to that appeal be paid out of the deceased estate.

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.