Redman v Permanent Trustee Co of New South Wales Ltd

The case of *Redman v Permanent Trustee Co of New South Wales Ltd* involved a dispute over the validity of a testamentary power of appointment exercised by Mrs. Falstedt. The plaintiffs, trustees of the will of John Redman, sought a declaration that the appointment made by Mrs. Falstedt in favour of Isabella Hage was a fraud on the power and therefore null and void. The defendants included Isabella Hage and Etela Redman, who claimed as an equitable assignee of Mrs. Hage's expectant interest. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which found in favour of the plaintiffs, and the defendants appealed to the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the appointment by Mrs. Falstedt was invalid as a fraud on the power, and if so, what were the consequences for Etela Redman's claim as an assignee of Mrs. Hage's purported interest. Specifically, the court had to determine if the appointment was made with the intention of benefiting a stranger to the power, namely Etela Redman, and whether any purported assignment of an expectancy, particularly one without consideration, was enforceable.

The High Court, by a majority, held that the appointment was void. Griffith C.J. and Barton J. found that the appointment was dominated by Mrs. Falstedt's intention to benefit Etela Redman, a non-object of the power, and that this intention was not saved by any desire to benefit Mrs. Hage. Isaacs J. reasoned that the appointment was made subject to a condition that Mrs. Hage would assign a significant portion to Etela Redman, and that Etela Redman had failed to discharge the onus of proving a qualification to this condition that would preserve the appointment. Rich J. concluded that the appointment would not have been made but for the arrangement to benefit Etela Redman, thus not serving the purpose of benefiting an object of the power.

Furthermore, the court held that Etela Redman had no enforceable right under his assignment from Mrs. Hage. Griffith C.J. and Barton J. found that as the appointment was void against Mrs. Hage, the assignee's title, derived from Mrs. Hage, also failed. Isaacs and Rich JJ. determined that the assignment to Etela Redman, being of an expectancy and without consideration, was unenforceable in equity. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, affirming the decision of the Supreme Court.