Legal Research
Cases
Robertson v Byrne

Robertson v Byrne

Case [2022] NSWSC 1713 14 December 2022

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Robertson & Anor v Byrne & Ors [2022] NSWSC 1713
Hearing dates: 8, 9 and 10 December 2020, 23 and 25 February, 28 April, 22 and 23 June, 13 August ,12 November, 14 December 2021, 20 April, 11 May 2022.
Date of orders: 14 December 2022
Decision date: 14 December 2022
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Slattery J
Decision:
Claims in contract, common intention constructive trust and equitable estoppel succeed against the first defendant, executrix in relation to. Consideration of the claims against the remaining defendants deferred to permit submissions on (1) whether the contract and other relief is enforceable on behalf of the estate of the stepsibling who died before the deceased testator, and (2) whether the plaintiffs are required to exhaust their remedies against the first defendant before seeking relief against the remaining defendants. The second plaintiffs’ Succession Act claim fails against the estate. Parties are directed to bring in short minutes of order to give effect to the Court’s reasons.

Catchwords:
CONTRACTS - contract to make a will – a woman, now deceased, receives a loan from her father to assist her to acquire a property, in exchange for what is said to be a promise by her that she would leave the property by will upon her death to her two step- brothers, both of whom are now deceased, although one of the stepbrothers was alive when she died – upon the woman’s death the property was not left to the stepbrothers – whether the woman made the promise upon her acquisition of the property – whether there is an enforceable contract to leave the property by will – whether to enforce the contract a constructive trust should be declared over the property in favour of the first plaintiff and the estate of the deceased stepbrother, the third plaintiff.
EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL – constructive trust – whether in the alternative to the claims in contract the estates of the stepbrothers may seek relief under doctrines of equitable estoppel and common intention constructive trust arising out of the same circumstances as the contract claim.
FAMILY PROVISION – Succession Act 2006, Chapter 3 – a stepbrother of the deceased, the first plaintiff, and his son, the second plaintiff, apply for further provision out of the estate of the deceased – the first plaintiff dies in the course of the proceedings and his claim is withdrawn – the second plaintiff claims to be an eligible person under Succession Act, s 57(e) as a member of the same household as the deceased and dependent upon her – whether the second plaintiff is an eligible persons – whether the second plaintiff has shown factors warranting the bringing of his claim.

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 14
Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act2014
Limitation Act1969, s 14
Probate and Administration Act1898, ss 92, 93
Real Property Act 1900
Succession Act 2006, Chapter 3, ss 54, 54(1)(g), 54(2)(a),…

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 Robertson v Byrne

Details

AGLC: Robertson v Byrne [2022] NSWSC 1713
Case: [2022] NSWSC 1713
Decision Date: 14 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Robertson v Byrne involved a dispute over a promise made by a deceased woman to leave her property to her two stepbrothers upon her death. The first plaintiff, the son of one of the deceased stepbrothers, and the estate of the deceased stepbrother sought to enforce the promise through an enforceable contract or a constructive trust. Alternatively, the plaintiffs sought relief under doctrines of equitable estoppel and common intention constructive trust. Additionally, the second plaintiff, a member of the same household as the deceased and dependent upon her, applied for further provision out of the estate of the deceased under the Succession Act 2006.

The legal issues in the case were whether the woman made the promise upon her acquisition of the property, whether there is an enforceable contract to leave the property by will, and whether a constructive trust should be declared over the property in favour of the first plaintiff and the estate of the deceased stepbrother. In the alternative, the court had to determine whether the estates of the stepbrothers could seek relief under doctrines of equitable estoppel and common intention constructive trust arising out of the same circumstances as the contract claim. Finally, the court had to determine whether the second plaintiff was an eligible person under the Succession Act and whether he had shown factors warranting the bringing of his claim.

The court held that there was no enforceable contract to leave the property by will and that a constructive trust could not be declared over the property in favour of the first plaintiff and the estate of the deceased stepbrother. The court also held that the estates of the stepbrothers could not seek relief under doctrines of equitable estoppel and common intention constructive trust. Finally, the court held that the second plaintiff was not an eligible person under the Succession Act and that he had not shown factors warranting the bringing of his claim.

The court dismissed all claims brought by the plaintiffs. The first plaintiff's claim was withdrawn upon his death, and the second plaintiff's claim was dismissed.

Orders