Legal Research
Cases
Re Rattle; O'Neil; v Equity Trustees Ltd

Re Rattle; O'Neil; v Equity Trustees Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 23 August 2019 45 min read

Contents

On this page

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

TRUSTS, EQUITY & PROBATE LIST

S ECI 2018 00365

IN THE MATTER of Part IV of the Administration and Probate Act 1958

- and -

IN THE MATTER of the Will and Estate of STUART CHARLES RATTLE, deceased

BETWEEN:

NORA CLARE O'NEILL (a disabled person who sues by her litigation guardian ANNE MARY O'NEILL)	Plaintiff
v
EQUITY TRUSTEES LIMITED (who is sued in its capacity as Executor of the Estate of Stuart Charles Rattle)	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	MOORE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	24 July 2019
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	23 August 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Rattle; O'Neill v Equity Trustees Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 565

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Application by the defendant for summary judgment — Plaintiff with litigation guardian — Application granted – Originating Motion bound to fail – No real prospect of success — Civil Procedure Act 2010, s 63 — Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, rr 22.16, 23.01, and 23.02.

TESTATOR FAMILY MAINTENANCE — Plaintiff sister of the former de facto partner of the deceased — Plaintiff seeks orders for provision for her proper maintenance and support from the deceased’s estate — Plaintiff and deceased never met — Deceased had no responsibility to make provision for the plaintiff’s maintenance and support from his estate —Administration and Probate Act 1958, Part IV.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr R C Wells	Maddens Lawyers
For the Defendant	Ms E L Coates	Aitken Partners Pty Ltd

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction & background

On 9 December 2013, Michael Anthony O’Neill (Michael) murdered his domestic partner of some 15 years, Stuart Charles Rattle (the deceased). Michael is serving a sentence of 18 years’ imprisonment for the murder.[1]
[1]Director of Public Prosecutions v Michael Anthony O’Neill [2015] VSC 25.

The deceased had made an informal will dated 25 August 2006 (the will). The will was admitted to probate on 16 May 2018.

Under the will, the deceased appointed Michael as executor, with Equity Trustees Ltd, the defendant in this proceeding, the substitute executor.

Although the will bequeathed the entirety of the deceased’s estate to Michael, he is unable to benefit from the deceased’s estate by operation of the forfeiture rule.[2]
[2]As determined by McMillan J in Re Rattle [2018] VSC 249.

The will also includes a substitute residuary clause which provides that, in the event that Michael fails to survive the deceased by 30 days, his estate would pass in equal shares to his two named sisters, his two named godsons and Nora Clare O’Neill, in the event that they survived him and attained the age of 21 years.

Nora O’Neill is a person under a disability and the sister of Michael. She is the plaintiff in this proceeding. Given the long term relationship between Michael and the deceased, in this proceeding the plaintiff was accurately described as 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; O'Neil; v Equity Trustees Ltd 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: [2019] VSC 565
Decision Date: 23 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Re Rattle; O'Neil v Equity Trustees Ltd, the court was called upon to consider an application for summary judgment by the defendant, Equity Trustees Ltd, in relation to a claim by the plaintiff, O'Neil, for provision for her proper maintenance and support from the estate of the deceased, Rattle. The plaintiff, who was the sister of the deceased's former de facto partner, sought to establish a claim under the Administration and Probate Act 1958, arguing that she was entitled to maintenance from the deceased's estate. The court was tasked with determining whether the plaintiff had a viable claim and if the application for summary judgment by the defendant was justified.

The primary legal issues for the court to decide were whether the plaintiff had a legitimate claim for maintenance from the deceased's estate and whether the defendant's application for summary judgment was appropriate. The court had to consider the relevant statutory provisions, particularly Part IV of the Administration and Probate Act 1958, which outlines the requirements for testamentary family maintenance orders. Additionally, the court examined the procedural rules under the Civil Procedure Act 2010 and the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 to determine the appropriate course of action.

The court found that the plaintiff had no real prospect of success in her claim as she and the deceased had never met, and the deceased had no legal obligation to provide for her maintenance. The court held that the plaintiff's claim was without merit and that the defendant's application for summary judgment was warranted. The court concluded that the originating motion was bound to fail, and there was no real prospect of the plaintiff succeeding in her claim. Consequently, the application for summary judgment was granted.

The court issued orders dismissing the plaintiff's claim and granting the defendant's application for summary judgment. The plaintiff's claim for maintenance from the deceased's estate was dismissed in its entirety. The court also ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the application.

Orders