Re Roth

Case [2022] VSC 511 31 August 2022

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted
AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
TRUSTS, EQUITY AND PROBATE LIST
S PRB 2016 21063

IN THE MATTER of the will of RUDI ROTH, deceased

BETWEEN:

GLENN SYDDALL WILLIAMS (in the will called GLENN SYDALL WILLIAMS) (in his capacity as the executor of the estate of RUDI ROTH, deceased) & Anor (according to the attached schedule) Plaintiffs

v

SANDRA ROTH & Ors (according to the attached schedule) Defendants
---

JUDGE:

McMillan J

WHERE HELD:

Melbourne

DATE OF HEARING:

30 March 2022

DATE OF JUDGMENT:

31 August 2022

CASE MAY BE CITED AS:

Re Roth

MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:

[2022] VSC 511 (First Revision 14 September 2022)

---

EQUITY AND TRUSTS – Construction of trust deed – Interaction between trust deed and deeds of variation – Interaction between trust deed and deed of appointment – Principles of construction – Whether deeds of variation and appointment validly appointed plaintiffs as sole beneficiaries of a family trust upon vesting of the trust – Relevance of deceased’s will to construction of the trust deed – Byrnes v Kendle (2011) 243 CLR 253.

APPEARANCES:
Counsel Solicitors

For the Plaintiffs R C Wells KHQ Lawyers

For the First to Fifth Defendants M W Wise QC with J Rizzi CIE Legal

For the Sixth Defendant A K Panna QC Maurice Blackburn Lawyers
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction................................................................................................................................... 1
The Family Trust........................................................................................................................... 3
The will........................................................................................................................................... 8
Legal principles............................................................................................................................. 9
Was the deceased a beneficiary under the trust deed?.......................................................... 11
The plaintiffs’ first question: the appointment deed............................................................. 12
The plaintiffs’ second question: clause 2 of the 1994 variation deed................................... 25
Did clause 2 of the 1994 variation deed amend clause 5 of the trust deed? 27
Was there a valid appointment under clause 5(a) of the trust deed?........... 30

Conclusion.................................................................................................................................... 31

HER HONOUR:
Introduction

1 Rudi Roth (‘the deceased’) died on 22 August 2016. By his last will dated 27 March 2014 (‘the will’), the deceased appointed Glenn Williams and Sydney Roth (‘the plaintiffs’) as executors of his will and trustees of his estate. Probate of the will was granted to the plaintiffs on 21 December 2016.

2 This proceeding has a long and protracted history, stemming from an application made by the plaintiffs for executors’ commission. For present purposes, it is sufficient to note that on 3 September 2021, Englefield JR made orders giving effect to an unpublished ruling which dismissed the plaintiffs’ application for executors’ commission and referred four matters relating to the administration of the deceased’s estate to a judge of this Court for consideration and, if appropriate, determination.

3 On 21 September 2021 the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in relation to the orders dismissing their application for executors’ commission.

4 The proceeding was listed for directions before the Court on 22 October 2021, where the plaintiffs contended that the first of the matters that Englefield JR referred to a judge of the Court was anterior to the other issues in the proceeding.

5 The first of 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.

Continue reading Re Roth

Details

AGLC: Re Roth [2022] VSC 511
Case: [2022] VSC 511
Decision Date: 31 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Roth involved a dispute concerning the interpretation and validity of certain documents related to a family trust. The plaintiffs sought to establish their entitlement to the trust's assets, arguing that deeds of variation and appointment had validly appointed them as the sole beneficiaries of the trust upon its vesting. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the legal issues arising from the interplay between the trust deed and the deeds of variation and appointment. The central question was whether these documents effectively appointed the plaintiffs as the sole beneficiaries of the trust, and if the deceased's will had any bearing on the construction of the trust deed.

The court had to examine the principles of construction of legal documents, particularly focusing on how the trust deed interacted with the deeds of variation and appointment. It was necessary to determine if the deeds in question were valid and whether they could override the terms of the original trust deed. The court also had to consider the relevance of the deceased's will in interpreting the trust deed. The decision in Byrnes v Kendle was cited as a relevant precedent, which provided guidance on how to approach the construction of such documents.

After careful consideration, the court concluded that the deeds of variation and appointment did not validly appoint the plaintiffs as the sole beneficiaries of the trust upon vesting. The court found that the trust deed's terms were clear and could not be overridden by subsequent documents without express language to that effect. The deceased's will was deemed irrelevant to the construction of the trust deed. The court's decision underscored the importance of precise language in legal documents and the need for clear instructions to alter the terms of an existing trust.

The court's final orders reflected its findings, upholding the original terms of the trust deed and dismissing the plaintiffs' claims. The trust's assets were to be distributed according to the terms of the trust deed, and the deeds of variation and appointment were not to have any effect in changing those terms.

Orders