SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Pike v Pike [2015] QSC 134
PARTIES:
Adam Lindsay PIKE
(applicant)
v
Stephen Jonathan PIKE(respondent)
FILE NO:
SC No 3763 of 2015
DIVISION:
Civil
PROCEEDING:
Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:
11 May 2015
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
11 May 2015
JUDGE:
Atkinson J
ORDERS:
1. Pursuant to the formal requirements of the Registrar, a Grant of Letters of Administration of the will of Suellen Olivene Pike, deceased, dated 15 July 2010, be granted to the applicant, Adam Lindsay Pike.
2. I declare that, upon the proper construction of the will of the deceased and in the events that have occurred, the estate of the deceased should be distributed to the applicant pursuant to clause 9 of the will.
3. I direct that the applicant is justified in disposing as he sees fit of any property belonging to the respondent which remains in or on the property at 1/7 Woburn Place, Burleigh Waters, and paying any proceeds received from that disposal to the Public Trustee of Queensland as manager of the estate of the respondent.
4. I order that the applicant’s costs of this application be paid from the estate of the deceased on an indemnity basis.
CATCHWORDS:
SUCCESSION – FORFEITURE WHERE TESTATOR OR INTESTATE KILLED UNLAWFULLY – GENERALLY – where named executor and sole beneficiary under the will of the deceased had been convicted of the manslaughter of the deceased, his mother – where the other son of the deceased applied for distribution of the estate in his favour – where the applicant relied on a substitutional clause of the will that would take effect on the failure of the clause benefiting the respondent absolutely – whether conviction of manslaughter of the testator enlivens the forfeiture rule – whether the forfeiture rule caused the clause benefiting the respondent to fail – whether the respondent forfeited his claim to the right of executorship
SUCCESSION – ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATE – OTHER MATTERS – where named executor and sole beneficiary under the will of the deceased had been convicted of the manslaughter of the deceased, his mother – where the respondent, a prisoner, had left personal property on the real property part of the estate – where the respondent took no part in the proceedings and made no arrangements for the removal of his personal property despite the applicant’s communications – whether the applicant was justified in disposing of the property as he saw fit, pursuant to the court’s power in relation to the administration of estates of deceased persons
Forfeiture Act 1870 (UK)
Forfeiture Act 1982 (UK) s 2
Forfeiture Act 1991 (ACT) s 3
Forfeiture Act 1995 (NSW) s 5, s 6
Succession Act 1981 (Qld) s 6Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 603(1)(d), r 603(2)
Cleaver v Mutual Reserve Fund Life Assurance [1892] 1 QB 147, referred to
R v Pike[2014] QCA 352, referred to
Re Crippen (1911) P 108; [1911-13] All…
Continue reading Pike v Pike
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Pike v Pike [2015] QSC 134
- Case
- [2015] QSC 134
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that Daniel's conviction for manslaughter indeed activated the forfeiture rule, which disentitles a person from inheriting or benefiting from the estate if they have unlawfully killed the testator or intestate. This forfeiture caused the clause in the will that directly benefited Daniel to fail. Furthermore, the court held that Daniel was also disqualified from serving as executor due to his conviction. Consequently, the estate should be distributed according to the substitutional clause in the will, which provided for the applicant, Adam, to receive the estate. Regarding Daniel's personal property on the estate, the court ruled that Adam was justified in disposing of it, as Daniel had not taken any steps to remove his belongings despite Adam's communications with him.
The orders of the court granted Adam a grant of letters of administration for Suellen's estate, declared that the estate should be distributed to him pursuant to clause 9 of the will, and authorised him to dispose of Daniel's personal property on the estate premises. The court also mandated that proceeds from the sale of Daniel's property be paid to the Public Trustee of Queensland as manager of Daniel's estate, and ordered that Adam's costs of the application be paid from Suellen's estate on an indemnity basis.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Pursuant to the formal requirements of the Registrar, a Grant of Letters of Administration of the will of Suellen Olivene Pike, deceased, dated 15 July 2010, be granted to the applicant, Adam Lindsay Pike.
2. I declare that, upon the proper construction of the will of the deceased and in the events that have occurred, the estate of the deceased should be distributed to the applicant pursuant to clause 9 of the will.
3. I direct that the applicant is justified in disposing as he sees fit of any property belonging to the respondent which remains in or on the property at 1/7 Woburn Place, Burleigh Waters, and paying any proceeds received from that disposal to the Public Trustee of Queensland as manager of the estate of the respondent.
4. I order that the applicant’s costs of this application be paid from the estate of the deceased on an indemnity basis.
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.