Re Rattle (No 2); Equity Trustees Ltd v Halstead - [2018] VSC 700

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

TRUSTS, EQUITY & PROBATE LIST

S PRB 2015 15467

IN THE MATTER of the will and estate of STUART CHARLES RATTLE, deceased

-and-

IN THE MATTER of an application pursuant to section 9 of the Wills Act 1997

EQUITY TRUSTEES LIMITED	Plaintiff
v
CHESTER WILLIAM SEMMENS HALSTEAD	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	McMillan J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	On the papers
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	15 November 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Rattle (No 2); Equity Trustees Ltd v Halstead
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSC 700

---

WILLS AND ESTATES — Principal beneficiary of estate convicted of murder of deceased — Where forfeiture rule applies — Whether gift over saved by the rule in Jones v Westcomb (1711) Prec Ch 316; 24 ER 149 — Where gift over not saved — Re Edwards; State Trustees Ltd v Edwards [2014] VSC 392.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr S McNab	Aitken Partners
For the Defendant	Ms C McOmish	William Murray Solicitors
Court Appointed Contradictors	Ms U Stanisich	Ms I Kallweit

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

Stuart Charles Rattle (‘the deceased’) died on 9 December 2013, leaving an estate valued at approximately $1,053,060.

On 16 May 2018, pursuant to s 9 of the Wills Act 1997 (‘the Wills Act’), probate of the informal will of the deceased dated 25 August 2006 (‘the 2006 will’) was granted to the plaintiff as the named substitute executor.[1] The Court determined that the deceased’s partner, Mr Michael O’Neill, had by his murder of the deceased forfeited his interest under the 2006 will.[2]
[1]Re Rattle [2018] VSC 249 (16 May 2018).
[2]Ibid [40]–[43].

The remaining issue for determination is how the 2006 will takes effect in light of the forfeiture of Mr O’Neill’s interest, specifically, whether effect should be given to the gift over provision in clause 5 of the 2006 will. For the reasons that follow, the Court has concluded that clause 5 should not be given effect and the estate falls to be distributed on an intestacy.

Procedural history

On 10 November 2017, the Court appointed two independent contradictors, counsel and a solicitor, to provide joint written submissions on the construction of the informal will and the legacies to each beneficiary. By 2 February 2018, the Court had received written submissions from both the plaintiff and the independent contradictors. On 16 March 2018, solicitors for Mr Chester Halstead, a beneficiary under the gift over provision in the 2006 will, informed the Court that Mr Halstead would likely make submissions regarding the operation of the 2006 will. On 10 August 2018, Mr Halstead was joined as a defendant to the proceeding and written submissions have since been filed on his behalf.

Factual background

A detailed factual background is outlined in the earlier decision of Re Rattle and are not repeated here, save for a brief outline of the facts relevant to the issue remaining before the Court and the…

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 Rattle (No 2); Equity Trustees Ltd v Halstead 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: [2018] VSC 700
Decision Date: 15 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Rattle (No 2); Equity Trustees Ltd v Halstead involved a dispute over the distribution of the estate of a deceased person, following the death penalty imposed on the principal beneficiary who was convicted of the deceased's murder. The primary issue before the court was whether the gift over in the will was saved from forfeiture by the rule in Jones v Westcomb, or whether it was forfeited under the forfeiture rule, as established in Re Edwards. The court was required to determine the applicability of these legal principles to the facts of this case.

The legal issues centred around the application of the forfeiture rule, which states that a beneficiary who is convicted of killing the deceased cannot benefit from the estate, and the rule in Jones v Westcomb, which allows for a gift over to take effect if the primary beneficiary is disqualified. The court needed to examine the circumstances of the case and decide whether the gift over was saved by the rule in Jones v Westcomb or whether it was forfeited under the general forfeiture rule. This decision hinged on the interpretation of the will and the application of relevant legal principles.

The court held that the gift over was not saved by the rule in Jones v Westcomb and was instead forfeited under the forfeiture rule. The court found that the circumstances of the case were more closely aligned with the decision in Re Edwards, where the gift over was forfeited due to the principal beneficiary's conviction of murder. The court reasoned that the rule in Jones v Westcomb did not apply as it was not intended to benefit a person who had committed the murder. The court concluded that the gift over was forfeited and the estate should be distributed according to the residuary clause.

As a result of the court's decision, the gift over was forfeited, and the estate was distributed according to the residuary clause. The principal beneficiary, who was convicted of the deceased's murder, was not entitled to any benefit from the estate. This decision reinforces the application of the forfeiture rule in cases where the principal beneficiary is convicted of killing the deceased and highlights the importance of considering the specific circumstances of each case when applying legal principles to the distribution of an estate.

Orders