Legal Research
Cases
Reid v Hubbard

Reid v Hubbard

Case [2003] VSC 387 3 October 2003

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

No. 5682 of 2002

SUSAN REID and MICHAEL JAMES REID (by his litigation guardian (SUSAN REID)	Plaintiffs
v
JOHN HAROLD HUBBARD & ANOR	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Nettle J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	1, 2 and 3 October 2003
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	3 October 2003
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Reid and Anor v Hubbard and Anor
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSC 387

---

Executors and trustees – breach of duties – failure to get in assets and establish trusts in accordance with the terms of the will – liability to account for loss – liability to pay interest on loss.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Ms C. Molyneaux QC with Mr A. Kirby	Marshalls & Dent
For the Defendant	Mr J.H. Hubbard (in person)

HIS HONOUR:

John Rickett Hubbard died on 7 November 1998 leaving a will by which he appointed his son, John Harold Hubbard, and a solicitor, Bruce Sundberg, as his executors and trustees. He directed that they should get in the whole of the estate and, after payment of debt and testamentary expenses, should divide the residue into two halves: the first to be held upon trust for John Harold Hubbard and others, upon terms described in the will as the "John fund", and the second to be held upon trust for Susan Reid and her son Michael James Reid and others, upon terms described in the will as the "Susan fund".

At the date of the deceased's death, his assets included a debt of $9,163,572 due by Hubbard Holdings Pty Ltd as trustee of the JRH Family Trust, and real property and listed securities in value totalling $1,221,317.72, and in the months which followed the deceased's death there flowed into the estate a superannuation payment of a further $1,536,148.86, and a tax refund of a further $147,619.79.

Since then, two real properties included amongst the assets have been realised at values in aggregate exceeding their probate valuations by $275,000, making therefore for a total value of the estate of $12,343,658.37.

If the estate's assets had been got in, as they could have been, and divided into the John and Sue funds in accordance with the will, there would have been not less than $6,171,829.18 in each of those funds.

Probate of the will was granted on 25 January 1999 but contrary to the terms of the will John Hubbard and Bruce Sundberg did not get in the assets of the estate and they did not establish either the “John fund” or “Susan fund”. The Hubbard Holdings Pty Ltd debt was left outstanding and John Hubbard, who was a director of that company, caused or procured Hubbard Holdings Pty Ltd to advance the amount of that debt and other funds of the JRH Family Trust to entities with which John Hubbard was associated.

Although the details are to some extent still uncertain, so far as can be told: between…

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 Reid v Hubbard

Details

AGLC: Reid v Hubbard [2003] VSC 387
Case: [2003] VSC 387
Decision Date: 3 October 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in Reid v Hubbard were the plaintiffs, who were the executors of a will, and the defendant, who was the trustee of a family trust. The dispute centred around the executors' alleged failure to properly administer the estate and establish trusts in accordance with the terms of the will. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The legal issues before the court involved whether the executors had breached their duties by failing to obtain and distribute assets to the intended beneficiaries, and if so, whether they were liable to account for the resulting loss and pay interest on that loss.

The court found that the executors had indeed failed to adhere to their fiduciary duties by not getting in the assets and establishing the trusts as required by the will. They were held liable to account for the loss incurred by the estate due to their negligence. The court also ruled that the executors were obligated to pay interest on the loss, as it was a breach of their duty to properly manage the estate. The reasoning behind this decision was based on the established principles of equity and trust law, which impose strict obligations on executors and trustees to act in the best interests of the beneficiaries and to carry out their duties with care and diligence.

The court's decision resulted in the executors being ordered to account for the loss and pay interest on that loss, ensuring that the beneficiaries would receive the intended benefits from the estate. The executors were also directed to take steps to rectify the breaches and properly administer the estate in accordance with the terms of the will. This ruling reinforced the importance of executors and trustees fulfilling their fiduciary duties and highlighted the consequences of failing to do so, including personal liability for any resulting losses.

Orders