Re Langford (dec'd); Equity Trustees Ltd v Langford - [2005] VSC 84

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

No. 7300 of 2004

IN THE MATTER of the Will and Estate of Clements Langford, deceased.
BETWEEN:

EQUITY TRUSTEES LTD (as Trustee of the Estate of Clements Langford deceased)	Plaintiff
v
JACK ELGAR LANGFORD and OTHERS	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Byrne J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATESOF HEARING:	7, 8 and 9 February 2005
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	24 March 2005
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Langford (deceased); Equity Trustees Ltd v Langford
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSC 84

---

Administration and probate – settled land – Trustee’s power of sale under the salvage jurisdiction – Trustee’s power of sale under expediency jurisdiction.

Trustee Act 1958, s.63

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr R. A. Brett QC with Ms K. Anderson	Chessell Williams
For the 1-3^rd, 5-14^th and 16^th Defendants	Mr S. McNab	Darren Muir Fleiter
For the 15^th and 18^th Defendants	Mr N. O’Bryan SC with Mr J. P. Moore	Norton Gledhill
For the 19^th – 29^th Defendants	Mr G. Uren QC with Mr H. W. Fraser	F.R. Monotti & Co
For the 30^th Defendant	Mr J. O’Bryan	Victorian Government Solicitor

HIS HONOUR:

Many a parent would like to have a beach house – a place where they and their children and their children’s children can gather and recreate in the long summer days and, indeed, throughout the year. The late Clements Langford was one such. He had the added advantage of being a successful master builder and a wealthy man. He was able to build a seven bedroom house of 265 sqm on the cliff top at Sorrento on a block of land in excess of four acres which he had purchased in 1904. The property is called Netley.

Mr Langford made provision for his family’s continuing enjoyment of Netley in cl. 7 of his will dated 23 June 1928.

O’D.C.

C.L.

J.H.P.

“7. I direct my trustees to retain my property known as ‘Netley’ Sorrento and to pay all rates taxes charges insurance and other expenses in connection therewith including all repairs and the keeping of the house grounds and fences in good proper and tenantable order and repair and to permit my children and my grandchildren as hereinafter defined to use occupy and (enjoy the same free of charge according to such arrangements ~~as my said (children and grandchildren shall agree upon between themselves or failing (such agreement~~ as my trustees shall decide.”

The testator died on 6 February 1930.

Now, 75 years later, Mr Langford’s widow and all of his eight children are deceased. Of his 26 grandchildren there remain surviving only sixteen whose ages range from 62 years to 91 years. The actuarial opinion before me shows that the class of grandchildren is expected to expire at the end of 2030 or thereabouts[1].
[1]The Mercer Report dated 23 July 2003 IFL7/p. 5 predicts expiry after 27.3 years, that is in November…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Re Langford (dec'd); Equity Trustees Ltd v Langford 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: [2005] VSC 84
Decision Date: 24 March 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the executors of the estate of a deceased individual, Langford, and Equity Trustees Ltd. The dispute centred around the trustees' powers to sell settled land under the Trustee Act 1958. Specifically, the issue was whether the trustees had the authority to sell the land under the 'salvage jurisdiction' or if the sale had to be conducted under the 'expediency jurisdiction'. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issue was whether the sale of settled land by the trustees could be executed under the 'salvage jurisdiction', which allows for a sale if it is for the benefit of the beneficiaries, or whether the sale must be conducted under the 'expediency jurisdiction', which is more stringent and requires court approval. The court had to determine whether the trustees had properly exercised their discretion and if the sale was conducted in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions.

The court held that the trustees had acted within their powers and the sale was properly executed under the 'salvage jurisdiction'. The court found that the trustees had exercised their discretion appropriately, considering the best interests of the beneficiaries. The sale was deemed to be for the benefit of the beneficiaries, and therefore, the court did not need to intervene under the more stringent 'expediency jurisdiction'. The court's decision was based on the interpretation of section 63 of the Trustee Act 1958, which grants trustees the power to sell settled land if it is in the best interests of the beneficiaries.

The court's final order was that the sale of the settled land by the trustees was valid and that the sale was conducted in accordance with the statutory provisions. The court affirmed that the trustees had exercised their powers appropriately and that the sale was in the best interests of the beneficiaries.

Orders