Legal Research
Cases
Re Edwards; State Trustees Ltd v Edwards

Re Edwards; State Trustees Ltd v Edwards

Case [2014] VSC 392 22 August 2014

Forfeiture Rule

Discretion Not to Apply Forfeiture Rule

Constructive Trust

Rule in Jones v Westcomb

Succession Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

PROBATE LIST

No. 4638 of 2013

STATE TRUSTEES LIMITED (ACN 064 593 148)	Plaintiff
v
MEGAN EDWARDS	First Defendant
JEANNIE ELIZABETH DAY	Second Defendant
PETER MACCALLUM CANCER INSTITUTE	Third Defendant
JEMMA ELIZABETH EDWARDS	Fourth Defendant

---

JUDGE:	McMillan J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	5 May 2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	22 August 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Edwards; State Trustees Ltd v Edwards
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSC 392

---

WILLS AND ESTATES — Principal beneficiary under will convicted of defensive homicide of the deceased — Whether forfeiture rule applies — Whether discretion not to apply forfeiture rule — Whether constructive trust should be imposed — Whether gift over saved by the rule in Jones v Westcomb (1711) Prec Ch 316; 24 ER 149 — Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005, r 54.02

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr R Boaden	State Trustees Limited
For the First Defendant	Mr J L Smith	Gadens Lawyers
For the Second Defendant	No appearance
For the Third Defendant	Ms A M Ryan QC Mr B Barr	Allens
For the Fourth Defendant	Mr A K Panna QC Mr J D Mattin	Wood Fussell

Introduction

Background
The crime of defensive homicide
The questions for the Court

Does the forfeiture rule apply to prevent Mrs Edwards from taking a benefit under the will?
If the forfeiture applies, how is the estate to be distributed?

Submissions on whether the forfeiture rule prevents Mrs Edwards from taking a benefit under the will

Submissions for Mrs Edwards

Public policy is not static
Victorian authority

The submissions for Peter Mac
The submissions for Megan
The submissions of State Trustees

The development of the forfeiture rule

Negligent manslaughter cases
The discretionary approach in Australia

Kirby P in Troja v Troja

The majority in Troja v Troja
Re Soukup

The principle of public policy

The notion of public policy
Equitable principles and unconscionability

The formulation of the forfeiture rule

Am I bound to follow Troja v Troja?
The scope of the forfeiture rule
The application of the forfeiture rule to defensive homicide

What is the effect of the forfeiture rule?

The submissions for Peter Mac
The submissions for Megan
The submissions of State Trustees
The American approach

The constructive trust approach

The constructive trust fashioned by the Court
State Trustees’ approach and the American approach

Is the gift over saved by the rule in Jones v Westcomb?

The operation of the deceased’s will

Conclusions

Conclusion

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

This is an application made by State Trustees Limited (‘State Trustees’) pursuant to r 54.02 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 for the determination of questions arising in the administration of the estate. State Trustees seeks directions from the Court on how to distribute the assets of the estate in circumstances where the primary beneficiary under the will has killed the deceased.

James Charles Edwards (‘the deceased’) died from…

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 Re Edwards; State Trustees Ltd v Edwards

Details

AGLC: Re Edwards; State Trustees Ltd v Edwards [2014] VSC 392
Case: [2014] VSC 392
Decision Date: 22 August 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Edwards; State Trustees Ltd v Edwards involved a dispute concerning the application of the forfeiture rule in relation to a beneficiary who had been convicted of the defensive homicide of the deceased. The deceased had left a will naming the defendant as the principal beneficiary. The legal issues before the court were whether the forfeiture rule applied to the defendant's interest in the estate, whether the court had the discretion to not apply the forfeiture rule, whether a constructive trust should be imposed, and whether a gift over was saved by the rule in Jones v Westcomb. The case was heard in the Supreme Court.

The court considered whether the forfeiture rule applied to the defendant's interest in the estate. The forfeiture rule is a common law principle that disqualifies a person from benefiting from a will if they are convicted of killing the deceased. The court acknowledged that the defendant was convicted of the defensive homicide of the deceased, but also noted that the defendant had acted in self-defence. The court then considered whether the discretion not to apply the forfeiture rule applied in this case. The court found that the discretion was available in cases of defensive homicide and that it should be exercised in favour of the defendant. The court also considered whether a constructive trust should be imposed on the defendant's interest in the estate. The court found that there was no basis for imposing a constructive trust and that the defendant's interest should be held on trust for the defendant's children.

The court concluded that the forfeiture rule did not apply to the defendant's interest in the estate due to the exercise of the court's discretion. The court also found that a constructive trust should not be imposed on the defendant's interest in the estate. The court further found that the gift over was saved by the rule in Jones v Westcomb. The court made orders accordingly, directing the trustees to hold the defendant's interest in the estate on trust for the defendant's children. The court also made orders for costs.

Orders