Re Flint

Case [2005] NSWSC 560


CITATION:

Re Flint [2005] NSWSC 560

HEARING DATE(S): Heard in chambers without appearance of any person
 
JUDGMENT DATE : 


9 June 2005

JURISDICTION:

Equity Division
Protective List

JUDGMENT OF:

Young CJ in Eq

DECISION:

Plaintiffs appointed managers of defendant's estate; plaintiffs' costs to be paid out of estate.

CATCHWORDS:

MENTAL HEALTH [3]- Missing person- Appointment of Protective Manager- How case established- Parents appointed managers of missing person's estate- Security not needed where managers share close relationship with protected person and estate is small- Operation of Protected Estates Act 1983, s 21C.

LEGISLATION CITED:

Protected Estates Act 1983, ss 21C, 31

PARTIES:

Lindsay Ross Flint and Pauline Anne Flint (P)
Glenn Keith Douglas Flint (D)

FILE NUMBER(S):

SC 24/2005

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
PROTECTIVE LIST

YOUNG CJ in EQ

Thursday 9 June 2005

24/2005 – RE FLINT

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: On 15 November 2001 Glenn Flint left his parents' home at Manly to attend a medical appointment. He fulfilled that appointment, but was never seen again.

2 On 16 November 2001, Glenn's mother reported his disappearance to the police.

3 The evidence shows that the police have followed their usual procedure in tracing missing persons without a positive result.

4 A Google search shows eight entries relating to Glenn as a missing person.

5 The evidence shows that Glenn's disappearance and his parents' concerns have been published in articles in the Sun Herald and Woman's Day and other media with widespread circulation.

6 In addition, the Salvation Army was requested to trace Glenn: it has endeavoured to find Glenn, but without success.

7 There has been no positive response.

8 The plaintiffs, who are Glenn's parents, seek an order under s 21C of the Protected Estates Act 1983, a provision which only came into force in December last year.

9 Because this is, as far as I am aware, the first case under this provision, I thought it was appropriate to give reasons for my decision.

10 Section 21C of the Protected Estates Act 1983 is as follows:

          "(1) The Court may declare that a person is a missing person and order that the estate of the person (or any part of it) be subject to management under this Act if the Court is satisfied that:
          (a) the person is a missing person, and
              (b) the person's usual place of residence is in this State, and
          (c) it is in the best interests of the person to do so.
          (2) The Court may be satisfied that a person is a missing person only if it is satisfied that:
          (a) it is not known whether the person is alive, and
              (b) all reasonable efforts have been made to locate the person, and
              (c) persons residing at the place where the person was last known to reside, or relatives or friends with whom the person would be likely to communicate, have not heard from, or of, the person for at least 90 days.
          (3) An application for a declaration and order under this section in relation to a person may be made by any of the following persons:
          (a) the spouse of the person,
          (b) a relative of the person,
          (c) a business partner or employee of the person,
          (d) the Attorney General,
          (e) the Protective Commissioner,
              (f) any other person who has an interest in the estate of the person.
          (4) On the hearing of an application for the purposes of this section, evidence may be given to the Court in such form and in accordance with such procedures as the Court thinks fit."

11 The plaintiffs, as Glenn's parents are eligible applications.

12 In accordance with general directions that I have given for this class of case, the missing person is named as the defendant, but the Court will dispense with service.

13 I need then, to be satisfied of the matters set out in sub-section (2).

14 As to (a), the evidence shows that no-one knows whether or not Glenn is alive.

15 As to (b), enquiries by the police, the Salvation Army and relatives including the media coverage, constitute reasonable efforts to locate Glenn.

16 As to (c), the affidavits show that people with whom Glenn resided and his relatives have not heard from him for over three years. Not all Glenn's friends are known, but those who are known have not seen him. The media coverage indicates that as there was no response to the appeals to locate Glenn, it is likely no other friend has seen him.

17 Glenn has some small assets and some debts. His parents reasonably wish to manage those assets pending his return.

18 I am satisfied on the evidence that Glenn is a missing person whose usual place of residence is in Manly in this State and that it is in the interests of Glenn to make a management order under the Protected Estates Act.

19 The proposed Managers are Glenn's parents. This is most appropriate. The next question is whether the appointment should be with or without security.

20 Section 31 of the Act gives the Court a discretion as to whether or not to order security. However, in the standard case, security to the satisfaction of the Protective Commissioner is ordinarily ordered.

21 In my view, when there is a close knit family, a small estate and little chance of loss because of the obvious family goodwill, the Court should dispense with security.

22 Thus I declare that the defendant, Glenn Flint, is a missing person and I make the following orders:


      1. The estate of the defendant be subject to management under the provisions of the Protected Estates Act 1983.

      2. Lindsay Ross Flint and Pauline Anne Flint be appointed manager of the estate of the defendant without security to act in relation thereto under the order and direction of the Protective Commissioner.

      3. On the death or discharge of either of the said managers the management of the estate shall continue to the surviving or continuing manager.

      4. The assessed costs of the plaintiffs of and incident to these proceedings be paid to the parties entitled thereto out of the estate of the defendant.

      5. Parties are at liberty to apply as they may be advised.

      ********************
Details
AGLC
Re Flint [2005] NSWSC 560
Case
[2005] NSWSC 560
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Re Flint, the parties involved were the parents of Flint, a missing person, who applied for the appointment of a Protective Manager over their son's estate. The court considered the nature of the dispute which centred around the necessity of appointing a Protective Manager and the conditions under which such an appointment should be made, given the circumstances of the missing person and the size of the estate. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appointment of a Protective Manager was necessary in the context of a missing person where the estate is relatively small and the potential managers, in this case the parents, have a close relationship with the missing person. The court was required to determine if the statutory provisions under the Protected Estates Act 1983 warranted such an appointment. Specifically, the court considered the relevance of section 21C of the Act in the context of the parents' application.

In delivering its judgment, the court examined the provisions of the Protected Estates Act 1983 and found that while the Act provides for the appointment of a Protective Manager to safeguard the interests of a missing person, the specific circumstances of the case mitigated the need for such an appointment. The court noted that the parents, who are the proposed managers, share a close relationship with Flint and the estate is not substantial, factors which significantly reduce the risk of mismanagement or misappropriation of the estate. The court concluded that in these circumstances, the appointment of a Protective Manager was not necessary, thereby granting the parents' application to be appointed as managers of their son's estate.

The court's final orders were that the parents of Flint be appointed as managers of his estate, recognising the unique nature of the case and the close familial ties. The court emphasised that this decision was made in consideration of the specific provisions of the Protected Estates Act 1983 and the particular circumstances surrounding the missing person and the size of the estate.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.