Re Luff

Case [2002] VSC 441


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

PRACTICE COURT

No. 7418 of 2002

IN THE MATTER OF -
GLORIA BEATRICE JESSICA LUFF

---

JUDGE:

Nettle J

WHERE HELD:

Melbourne

DATE OF HEARING:

10 October 2002

DATE OF JUDGMENT:

10 October 2002

CASE MAY BE CITED AS:

Re Luff

MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:

[2002] VSC 441

---

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel Solicitors
For the Applicant Ms D. Lyle Mr T. Mepstead

HIS HONOUR:

  1. This is an application made by originating motion dated 23 September 2002 for orders that the applicant be at liberty without enquiry to administer and distribute the estate of the deceased upon the footing that Melvin John Luff, the father of the deceased, did not survive the deceased. 

  1. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant, Gloria Beatrice Jessica Luff on 15 February 2000, an affidavit sworn by Timothy Mepstead on 20 August 2002, an affidavit of Gary Charles Tragnard sworn on 2 October 2002 and an affidavit of Robert Peter Clemens sworn 10 September 2002.  Those affidavits establish that the last occasion upon which Melvin John Luff was seen was at a dog show in 1988, he was at that time divorced;  and that there is no evidence of him having remarried since the divorce.  In the result, there is evidence which demonstrates that, for a period considerably in excess of seven years before the death of the deceased, there had been no sight nor sound from Melvin John Luff and that he was unmarried.

  1. In those circumstances, I am prepared to make an order that, in the absence of any evidence that Melvin John Luff survived the intestate, Thomas Reginald St John Luff, deceased, the personal representative of the deceased be at liberty to divide the share of the deceased's estate upon the footing that the said Melvin John Luff was unmarried and did not survive the testator.  I am prepared further to order that the costs of the plaintiff of and incidental to the application be paid out of the estate of the deceased on a solicitor-own client basis, and I shall reserve liberty to apply to the applicant in the event that such may be required.

---

Details
AGLC
Re Luff [2002] VSC 441
Case
[2002] VSC 441
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, Nettle J heard an application concerning the estate of Thomas Reginald St John Luff, who passed away intestate. The applicant, Gloria Beatrice Jessica Luff, sought orders allowing her to administer and distribute the estate of the deceased on the basis that Melvin John Luff, the father of the deceased, did not survive the deceased. The matter was heard on 10 October 2002, and judgment was delivered on the same day. The court was required to determine whether sufficient evidence existed to establish that Melvin John Luff was deceased, thereby permitting Gloria Beatrice Jessica Luff to act as the personal representative of the deceased's estate.

The legal issue at the heart of the case was whether the applicant had provided adequate evidence to support her claim that Melvin John Luff, the father of the deceased, did not survive the deceased. This involved examining the affidavits presented, which detailed the last known sighting of Melvin John Luff in 1988, his divorce at that time, and the lack of any subsequent evidence of him being alive or having remarried. The court had to assess whether these circumstances met the legal threshold for presuming a person's death for the purposes of estate administration.

Nettle J found that the evidence presented was sufficient to presume the death of Melvin John Luff, as there had been no contact or sighting of him for over seven years prior to the deceased's death, and he was known to be unmarried. Consequently, the court made an order permitting Gloria Beatrice Jessica Luff to administer and distribute the deceased's estate on the assumption that Melvin John Luff was deceased and unmarried. The court also ordered that the costs of the application be paid from the deceased's estate on a solicitor-own client basis and reserved the liberty to make further orders if necessary.

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.