Perry v Perry

The parties involved in this case were the plaintiff, Perry, and the defendant, also Perry. The dispute centered around the administration of an intestate estate, with the plaintiff alleging that the defendant, who had been appointed as the administrator of the estate over 45 years ago, had maladministered the estate and sought an accounting based on wilful default. The case was heard in the court. The legal issues that the court had to decide included whether the defendant had indeed maladministered the estate, the extent of the plaintiff's claims, and whether the court should order an accounting or revoke the grant of letters of administration.

The court first considered the plaintiff's allegations of maladministration. It noted that the evidence presented was fallible, and there were few contemporary documents available. As a result, the court found it practically impossible to make findings of credibility. The court also considered the plaintiff's request for an accounting of the estate. However, the court refused to order an accounting unless the defendant pursued an application to limit the interest of the estate in land to its unimproved capital value. The court also considered the plaintiff's request for the revocation of the grant of letters of administration and the appointment of a replacement administrator. However, the court found that the intervening events no longer necessitated the orders sought by the plaintiff.

The court found that the defendant administrator had used the beneficiaries' entitlements in the estate to provide for their maintenance and advancement during their minority. The plaintiff argued that the defendant was not entitled to do that, but the court found that orders can be made authorising the trustee to apply the income of the trust for the maintenance, education, and advancement of minor beneficiaries. The court also found that the defendant was a single parent with a limited source of income, which made it difficult for her to provide for the maintenance and advancement of the minor beneficiaries without using the estate's assets. The court concluded that the defendant's actions were reasonable and did not amount to maladministration of the estate. The court therefore refused to make the orders sought by the plaintiff.