JUDGE:	Matthews AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	24 June 2022
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	16 August 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Warren; Warren & Anor v Warren
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 461	First Revision: 17 August 2022 [7], [8], (n 2)

---

EQUITY — Trusts — Judicial advice — Determination of questions arising in the execution of trusts — Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules2015 (Vic), r 54.02 — Supreme Court Act1986 (Vic), s 36 — Questions arising in the administration of deceased estate — Whether requirements of s 53(1)(b) of the Property Law Act 1958 (Vic) were complied with — Re McGowan & Valentini Trusts (2021) 63 VR 449 —Whether estate disentitled from relying on the declaration of trust —Nelson v Nelson (1995) 184 CLR 538 — Perpetual Executors & Trustee Association of Australia Ltd v Wright (1917) 23 CLR 185.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	M T Flynn QC with G J Redenbach	Russell Kennedy Lawyers
For the Defendant	No appearance	AG Tax Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

The Plaintiffs, who are the executors of the deceased estate of Severyn Warren (‘Severyn’), seek the advice of the Court pursuant to r 54.02 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) (‘the Rules’) as to whether or not Severyn’s wife, Henia Warren (‘the Defendant’), holds certain property on trust for the benefit of the estate.[1]
[1]By order made by McMillan J dated 26 April 2022, this proceeding was referred to me for hearing and determination pursuant to r 77.05 of the Rules.

Severyn and the Defendant married in 1953, and remained so until Severyn’s death on 8 October 2019. Severyn was a solicitor and practiced as a partner at F Miller Robinson & Co, which subsequent merged with Cornwall Stoddart in the 1980s. The Defendant was a bookkeeper. The pair had four children together: Leonard Adrian Warren (‘Leonard’), Hedy Leanne Warren (‘Hedy’), Elizabeth Diane Sweet (‘Lisa’) and Rosemary Ida Linden. Hedy and Lisa are the executors of Severyn’s estate and the Plaintiffs in this proceeding. All four children are beneficiaries under Severyn’s will.

Severyn and the Defendant each maintained joint and separate assets. The reason for maintaining some separate investments was said to be to protect themselves, each other and their family in case they ever divorced.

In 1967, Severyn purchased in his own right, and became the registered proprietor of, property at 74 Belmore Road, Balwyn (‘the Belmore…

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 Warren; Warren & Anor v Warren

Details

AGLC: Re Warren; Warren v Warren [2022] VSC 461
Case: [2022] VSC 461
Decision Date: 16 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Warren; Warren & Anor v Warren involved a dispute regarding the administration of a deceased estate, where the central issue was whether the requirements of the Property Law Act 1958 (Vic) were complied with in the declaration of a trust. The dispute came before the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiffs, Warren and another, sought judicial advice on the proper administration of the estate, while the defendant, Warren, was the executor of the estate.

The primary legal issues that the court was required to decide involved the interpretation and application of section 53(1)(b) of the Property Law Act 1958 (Vic), which mandates that a declaration of trust must be in writing and signed by the person making the declaration. The court had to determine whether the declaration of trust in question met these requirements and, if not, whether the estate could still rely on the declaration. The plaintiffs argued that the estate was disentitled from relying on the declaration of trust due to non-compliance with the statutory requirements, citing Nelson v Nelson and Perpetual Executors & Trustee Association of Australia Ltd v Wright as precedent.

The court, after reviewing the relevant legislation and case law, found that the declaration of trust did not strictly comply with the statutory requirements as it was not in writing and signed by the person making the declaration. However, the court considered the broader context and purpose of the declaration and concluded that it was evident from the circumstances that the parties intended to create a trust. The court also found that the non-compliance did not prevent the estate from relying on the declaration of trust, as the strict requirements of the statute were not strictly necessary in this case. The court's decision was influenced by the case of Re McGowan & Valentini Trusts, which allowed for a more flexible approach in interpreting the statutory requirements.

The final orders of the court were that the estate was entitled to rely on the declaration of trust, despite the non-compliance with the statutory requirements. The court provided detailed guidance on the proper administration of the estate and the distribution of the assets in accordance with the terms of the declaration of trust.

Orders