Legal Research
Cases
Schneider Re Estate Blashild

Schneider Re Estate Blashild

Case [2009] NSWSC 566 19 June 2009

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Schneider Re Estate Blashild [2009] NSWSC 566

HEARING DATE(S): 3 June 2009

JUDGMENT DATE :
19 June 2009

JURISDICTION: Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF: Ward J

DECISION: Advice given that executors would be justified in making interim distribution of half of legacies subject to provision of undertakings by legatees.

CATCHWORDS: EQUITY – trusts and trustees – applications to the court for advice and authority – whether executors would be justified in making interim distribution of half of legacies – substantial estate – executors engaged in potentially lengthy and costly litigation in Israel – unknown potential additional costs in realising and administering estate – consideration of duties of executors to consider and to make interim distributions – consideration of undertakings, indemnities or security which might be provided by legatees – held that executors would be justified in making interim distribution of half of legacies, subject to provision of undertakings by legatees.

LEGISLATION CITED: Foreign Judgments Regulations 1991 (Cth)
Probate & Administration Act 1898
Trustee Act 1925

CATEGORY: Procedural and other rulings

CASES CITED: Blackman v Permanent Trustee Co Limited [2003] NSWSC 305
Bullas v Public Trustee [1981] 1 NSWLR 641
Frey v Demarset 16 New Jersey Equity 236
Gonzales v Claridades [2003] NSWSC 508
Macedonian Orthodox Community Church St Petka Incorporated v His Eminence Petar The Diocesan Bishop of the Macedonian Orthodox Diocese of Australia and New Zealand (2008) 249 ALR 250
Re Akerman [1891] 3 Ch 212
Re Ralphs; Ralphs v District Bank Ltd [1968] 1 WLR 1522
Re Yorke (deceased): Stone v Chataway [1997] 4 All ER 907
Thomson Australian Holdings Pty Limited v Trade Practices Commission and Others (1981) 148 clr 150

TEXTS CITED: English White Book 85/2/8 and 85/2/10
Jacobs Law of Trusts [2111]
Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence vol 1

PARTIES: Robert Paul Schneider and Leonard Barry Mahemoff (Plaintiffs)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2299 of 2009

COUNSEL: J E Armfield (Plaintiffs)
J-J Loofs (Beneficiaries - Mr and Mrs Apel)

SOLICITORS: Diamond Conway (Plaintiffs)
Teece Hodgson & Ward (Beneficiaries - Mr and Mrs Apel)

- 26 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

WARD J

FRIDAY 19 JUNE 2009.

2299/07 ROBERT PAUL SCHNEIDER & ANOR RE ESTATE OF THE LATE ESTHER BLASHILD DECEASED

JUDGMENT – on application for judicial advice

1 In this matter the plaintiffs, who are the executors of the estate of the late Esther (also known as Esta) Blashild (“the deceased”), have brought an application for judicial advice pursuant to s 63 of the Trustee Act 1925 as to whether they are justified in making an interim distribution of the deceased’s estate by paying half, or some other portion, of the legacies referred to in clause 5 of the deceased’s last will (with the exception of the legacies to Arie and Hadassa Apel and to Hadassah Ramin).

2 In submissions served after the hearing of the application, the executors have sought further guidance from the court as to what approach should be taken in relation to the acceptance of any undertakings by beneficiaries…

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 Schneider Re Estate Blashild

Details

AGLC: Schneider Re Estate Blashild [2009] NSWSC 566
Case: [2009] NSWSC 566
Decision Date: 19 June 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Schneider Re Estate Blashild involved the executors of the estate of Blashild Schneider, who sought guidance from the court regarding the interim distribution of legacies. The executors were engaged in a potentially lengthy and costly litigation in Israel, with the estate containing substantial assets. The court was asked to determine whether it would be justified for the executors to make an interim distribution of half of the legacies to the beneficiaries. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the court were the executors' duties to consider and to make interim distributions, balanced against the potential additional costs and uncertainties associated with the ongoing litigation. The court had to weigh the executors' obligation to distribute the estate as promptly as possible against the need to ensure that there were sufficient funds to cover any future costs that might arise during the litigation. Furthermore, the court needed to consider the role of undertakings, indemnities, or security provided by the legatees in facilitating an interim distribution.

In delivering its judgment, the court found that the executors would be justified in making an interim distribution of half of the legacies, subject to the provision of undertakings by the legatees. The court recognised the executors' duty to distribute the estate as promptly as possible, but also acknowledged the potential risks and costs associated with the ongoing litigation. The court determined that the provision of undertakings by the legatees would provide an appropriate level of security to the executors, enabling them to proceed with the interim distribution while still protecting the interests of all parties involved.

The court's final orders provided that the executors would be justified in making an interim distribution of half of the legacies, subject to the provision of undertakings by the legatees. This decision balanced the executors' duties and responsibilities with the need to manage the risks and uncertainties associated with the ongoing litigation.

Orders