Re: Vyner v Vyner - [1999] QSC 198

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF QUEENSLAND
Brisbane No.7769 of 1996
Before the Hon. Mr Justice Shepherdson
[re: Vyner v Vyner]

RE: ALEXANDER JAMES VYNER DECEASED AND
  LYNETTE MARCIA VYNER DECEASED
GAVIN JOHN VYNER
  Plaintiff
  and
LESLIE JAMES VYNER
  Defendant
BY ORIGINAL ACTION
LESLIE JAMES VYNER
  Plaintiff
  and
GAVIN JOHN VYNER
  Defendant
BY COUNTER-CLAIM

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - SHEPHERDSON J.

Judgment delivered 24 August 1999
CATCHWORDS: WILLS, PROBATE AND LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION -CONDITION, FORFEITURE AND GIFT-OVER - LEGALITY AND PUBLIC POLICY - plaintiff claims entitlement under the wills of his mother and his father - both wills left estate to plaintiff and defendant in equal shares - cross-claim that plaintiff precluded from taking his share - plaintiff admits that he shot and killed both his parents - plaintiff claims that his actions were excused at law due to his unsoundness of mind which was operating at the time of the killings - whether the forfeiture rule precluded the plaintiff from taking under each will - whether at the time of each killing the plaintiff’s mental condition was such as to bring him within s27 of the Criminal Code.

Counsel: Mr K Lynch with Mr C Clark for the plaintiff
No appearance for the defendant

Solicitor: Walker Pender for the plaintiff
No appearance for the defendant

Hearing date: 12 and 13 August 1999
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF QUEENSLAND
Brisbane No.7769 of 1996
Before the Hon. Mr Justice Shepherdson
[re: Vyner v Vyner]

RE: ALEXANDER JAMES VYNER DECEASED AND
  LYNETTE MARCIA VYNER DECEASED
GAVIN JOHN VYNER
  Plaintiff
  and
LESLIE JAMES VYNER
  Defendant
BY ORIGINAL ACTION
LESLIE JAMES VYNER
  Plaintiff
  and
GAVIN JOHN VYNER
  Defendant
BY COUNTER-CLAIM

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - SHEPHERDSON J.
Judgment delivered 24 August 1999

The plaintiff and the defendant are brothers. Their parents were Alexander James Vyner and Lynette Marcia Vyner both of whom lived at Lot 6 Garden Road, Cedar Creek near Beenleigh in Queensland.
On or about 31 July 1992 at their home the plaintiff shot and killed his parents.
Each of his parents left a will dated 28 November 1980. In terms of each will each parent's estate passed to the plaintiff and defendant in equal shares.
In each parent's estate this Court, on 23 August 1993 granted to the defendant letters of administration with the will annexed.
On 18 September 1996 the plaintiff began this action by issuing a writ. In his statement of claim, the plaintiff has sought the following relief:
1.A declaration that he is entitled to share as a beneficiary under the will of his father.
2.An order that the defendant distribute to the plaintiff all that to which he is entitled as a beneficiary under the will of his father.
3.A declaration that he is entitled to share as a beneficiary under the will of his mother.
4.An order that the defendant distribute to the plaintiff all that to which he is entitled as a beneficiary under the will of his mother.
5.Interest.
Other relief was sought to which it is…

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: Vyner v Vyner

Details

AGLC: Re: Vyner [1999] QSC 198
Case: [1999] QSC 198
Decision Date: 24 August 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Vyner v Vyner, the plaintiff Gavin John Vyner sought a declaration that he was entitled to benefit under the wills of his deceased parents, Alexander James Vyner and Lynette Marcia Vyner, and an order that the defendant Leslie James Vyner, the other beneficiary under the wills, distribute his share of the estates to Gavin. Leslie counterclaimed that Gavin was not entitled to benefit under the wills as he had unlawfully killed both his parents, forfeiting his entitlement. The central issue was whether Gavin's mental state at the time of the killings excused his actions at law.

The court found that Gavin had admitted shooting his parents but claimed he was of unsound mind at the time, excusing his actions. Three psychiatrists had previously found that Gavin was suffering from a mental disease that deprived him of certain capacities at the time of the killings, rendering him not criminally responsible. The court accepted the psychiatrists' evidence that Gavin was insane within the meaning of s 27 of the Criminal Code at the time of the killings. As Gavin was not criminally responsible for the killings, he had not forfeited his entitlement to benefit under the wills. The court declared that Gavin was entitled to benefit under the wills of both his parents and dismissed Leslie's counterclaim. The court adjourned the action to allow the parties to attempt to agree on the remaining relief sought.

The key reasons were that Gavin had satisfied the relevant standard of proof that he was of unsound mind at the time of the killings, excusing his actions at law and preventing the forfeiture of his entitlement under the wills. The criminal standard of proof did not apply in the civil proceedings before the court.

Orders