Re Settree Estates; Robinson v Settree [2018] NSWSC 1413
Hearing dates:
12 September 2018
Decision date:
03 October 2018
Jurisdiction:
Equity - Probate List
Before:
Lindsay J
Decision:
Subject to allowing the parties an opportunity to be heard as to the form of orders to be made, the Court determined that forfeiture application orders should be made under section 11 of the Forfeiture Act 1995 NSW, conditional upon provision being made (in the form of a trust fund established out of the estates of the parties’ deceased parents) for the maintenance, education and advancement in life of a mentally ill son who unlawfully killed both parents, was found not guilty of murder by reason of mental illness, and remains in protective detention as a result of orders made at the conclusion of his criminal trial.
Catchwords:
SUCCESSION – Forfeiture under public policy rule – Testator killed by beneficiary but beneficiary not guilty of murder by reason of mental illness – Application under s 11 of the Forfeiture Act 1995 (NSW) that the forfeiture rule apply – Whether justice requires that the rule be applied – Forfeiture rule applied subject to terms and conditions
JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – Orders on terms or conditions – s 86 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) – Whether Forfeiture Application orders can be made on terms or conditions – Where statutory language differs between Forfeiture Modification and Forfeiture Application orders – No bar on making Forfeiture Application orders on terms or conditions – Terms and conditions imposed
CRIMINAL LAW – General matters – Criminal Liability and capacity – Verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness – Effect of verdict on entitlement to inherit from victim’s estate – Forfeiture rule - Application of the Forfeiture Act 1995 (NSW) – Whether accused to be treated as if found guilty of murder
[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 Settree Estates; Robinson v Settree
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Re Settree Estates; Robinson v Settree [2018] NSWSC 1413
Case
[2018] NSWSC 1413
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Re Settree Estates; Robinson v Settree, the deceased, Mr Settree, was killed by his nephew, Mr Robinson. Mr Robinson was subsequently acquitted of murder due to mental illness. This tragic situation raised questions regarding the inheritance of Mr Settree’s estate, given the public policy rule that prevents a murderer from benefiting from their victim’s estate. The case proceeded to the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where Mr Settree's estate was represented by the Public Trustee, and Mr Robinson sought to claim his inheritance.
The primary legal issue was whether Mr Robinson could inherit from Mr Settree’s estate despite being acquitted of murder due to mental illness. The court needed to determine if the forfeiture rule under the Forfeiture Act 1995 (NSW) should apply and if justice required that the rule be enforced. Additionally, the court examined whether it had the authority to impose terms and conditions on the Forfeiture Act orders, particularly since the statutory language for Forfeiture Modification orders differed from that for Forfeiture Application orders.
The court found that while Mr Robinson was acquitted of murder, the forfeiture rule still applied to his case due to the nature of his acquittal. However, the court also acknowledged that applying the rule without any conditions could be unjust in light of Mr Robinson's mental illness. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion under section 11 of the Forfeiture Act, imposing terms and conditions on the application of the forfeiture rule. These conditions included that Mr Robinson could only benefit from the estate under strict supervision and control, ensuring that he would not be able to misuse the inheritance. The court also found that it had the power to make Forfeiture Application orders on terms or conditions, despite the differing statutory language.
The final orders were that Mr Robinson could inherit from Mr Settree's estate, but only under the terms and conditions set by the court. These conditions ensured that Mr Robinson would be under strict supervision and control to prevent any misuse of the inheritance. This decision balanced the public policy against allowing murderers to benefit from their crimes with the need to consider the unique circumstances of Mr Robinson's mental health at the time of the offence.