Re Sheppard; Heathcote v Sheppard - [2020] VSC 829

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

TRUSTS, EQUITY AND PROBATE LIST

S ECI 2020 02398

IN THE MATTER of the will and estate of ROBERT DIGBY HALBURTON SMITH SHEPPARD, deceased

BERNARD DAVID HEATHCOTE (who sues in his capacity as executor of the estate of the above named deceased)	Plaintiff
v
SUZANNE LOUISE SHEPPARD	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	McMillan J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	On the papers
DATE OF RULING:	9 December 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Sheppard; Heathcote v Sheppard
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 829

---

JUDICIAL ADVICE – Whether beneficiary must accept transfer of property in Toorak – Where entitlement to property derives from signed terms of settlement – Summary nature of judicial advice proceedings – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) r 54.02 – Macedonian Orthodox Community Church St Petka Inc v His Eminence Petar The Diocesan Bishop of The Macedonian Orthodox Diocese of Australia and New Zealand (2008) 237 CLR 66.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr R Wells	Ellinghaus Weill Lawyers & Consultants
For the Defendant	Self-represented

HER HONOUR:

Background

Robert Digby Haliburton Smith Sheppard (‘the deceased’) died on 13 June 2004 leaving a will dated 1 October 1991 (‘the will’).

Probate of the will was granted to the plaintiff, the deceased’s son-in-law, on 9 September 2004.

The deceased was survived by:

(a) his ex-wife of his second marriage, Ms Suzanne Sheppard (‘Ms Sheppard Senior’), who lived with him at the date of his death;

(b) his daughter from his first marriage, Ms Beverley Heathcote, who is the plaintiff’s wife; and

(c) his two daughters from his second marriage, being Ms Suzanne Sheppard (who is also known as ‘Suzanne Louisa Sutcliffe’) (‘the defendant’) and Ms Diane McDonald.

The deceased’s will provided $50,000 for Ms Sheppard Senior and for the balance of the estate to be transferred to his three children in equal shares.

Since the deceased’s death, the estate has been subject to various proceedings, including:

(a) a testators family maintenance claim initiated by Ms Sheppard Senior.[1] This proceeding was compromised, with parties entering into terms of agreement (the ‘2008 terms’). The 2008 terms provide Ms Sheppard Senior with the right to use and occupy the estate property at 671 Orrong Road, Toorak (‘the Orrong Road property’) until her death, and the sum of $215,000 to be paid to Ms Sheppard Senior’s administrator for her benefit during her lifetime, and the sum of $100,000 to her administrator for any required property improvements, with any remaining amount to be then repaid to the estate upon her death;

(b) a proceeding initiated by the defendant, in which she claimed she was the beneficial owner of a property in South Yarra.[2] This proceeding was dismissed, with Harper J delivering an ex tempore judgement; and

(c) a testators family maintenance claim initiated by the defendant.[3] The parties entered into terms of settlement on 30 November 2010 (‘the 2010 terms’). The 2010 terms provide…

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 Sheppard; Heathcote v Sheppard

Details

AGLC: Re Sheppard; Heathcote v Sheppard [2020] VSC 829
Case: [2020] VSC 829
Decision Date: 9 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a dispute between the applicant and the respondent concerning the transfer of property in Toorak. The applicant sought an order for the transfer of the property in accordance with the terms of a settlement agreement. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central legal issue that the court had to determine was whether the beneficiary was required to accept the transfer of the property in question. The court had to consider the signed terms of settlement and whether the summary nature of the judicial advice proceedings permitted the applicant to seek an order for the transfer of the property.

The court found that the signed terms of settlement were binding and that the applicant was entitled to the property. The court noted that the summary nature of the judicial advice proceedings allowed the applicant to seek an order for the transfer of the property. The court relied on the case of Macedonian Orthodox Community Church St Petka Inc v His Eminence Petar The Diocesan Bishop of The Macedonian Orthodox Diocese of Australia and New Zealand to support its decision. The court held that the applicant was entitled to the transfer of the property in Toorak as per the terms of the settlement agreement.

Based on the court's reasoning, it was determined that the beneficiary was required to accept the transfer of the property in Toorak. The court made an order for the transfer of the property in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement. This decision highlights the importance of the signed terms of settlement in determining the outcome of the case. The court's decision also emphasises the role of judicial advice proceedings in facilitating the resolution of disputes concerning the transfer of property.

Orders