Shaw v Blanchett - [2006] VSC 295

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

No. 9307 of 2005

KEVIN ERIC SHAW	Plaintiff
v
JULIE KRISTINE BLANCHETT	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Hansen J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	23 February 2006
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	9 August 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Shaw v Blanchett
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 295

---

Administration and probate – Administration and Probate Act 1958, s 15 – Executor administered estate without probate – Plaintiff desiring to bring claim for provision out of estate under Part IV – Application for executor to bring will into court and for letters of administration with the will annexed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Ms D Lyle	Macpherson + Kelley
The Defendant appeared in person

HIS HONOUR:

This is an application by originating motion under s 15 of the Administration and Probate Act 1958 (“the Act”). The plaintiff is Kevin Eric Shaw. The defendant is Julie Kristine Blanchett, a daughter of Patricia Anne Gaffney, deceased, who died on 24 April 2004 aged 64 years leaving a will dated 6 March 1987 in which she appointed the defendant sole executor of her estate. The defendant, who has not applied for a grant of probate, opposes the application.

The relief sought in the originating motion is, in substance, that the defendant bring the will into court, and that letters of administration with the will annexed be granted to the plaintiff. The latter order is sought to enable the plaintiff to bring a claim for an order for provision out of the estate of the deceased under Part IV of the Act. The plaintiff put the matter thus in his first affidavit:

“15.For many years the deceased and I lived in a de facto relationship.
16.In a proceeding under Part IV of the Act I would intend to rely on, among other things, my contribution to the building up of the deceased’s estate by means including those pleaded in the statement of claim in proceeding No 5852 of 2005.
17.In the absence of a grant of probate of the Will, I am unable to commence a proceeding under Part IV of the Act.”

Counsel submitted that the fact that the plaintiff could not sue himself in such contemplated proceeding was not a difficulty. First, as between the plaintiff and the defendant the plaintiff was the more appropriate person to administer the estate. Secondly, down the track the appointment could be handed over to State Trustees. Alternatively, pursuant to the Family Provision rules (Chapter II, Order 16.04(2)) where the plaintiff is the sole personal representative of the deceased, the present executor (Ms Blanchett) or her siblings would properly be the defendant or defendants as a person or persons having a substantial interest in opposing the application.

I note that in bringing the application by originating motion the plaintiff did not follow the procedure authorised by s 15 of the Act. Experience in the Practice Court indicates that it is not uncommon…

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 Shaw v Blanchett

Details

AGLC: Shaw v Blanchett [2006] VSC 295
Case: [2006] VSC 295
Decision Date: 9 August 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Shaw v Blanchett involved a dispute regarding the administration of an estate under the Administration and Probate Act 1958. The plaintiff, Shaw, sought to bring a claim for provision from the estate of Blanchett, who had passed away. Blanchett had been administered by an executor who had not obtained probate, prompting Shaw to apply for the executor to present the will to the court and for letters of administration with the will annexed. The court was tasked with determining whether the executor's actions complied with the statutory requirements and if the plaintiff's application should be granted.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the executor's administration of the estate without obtaining probate was valid, and if so, whether the plaintiff's application to bring the will into court and obtain letters of administration with the will annexed should be approved. The court had to examine the provisions of the Administration and Probate Act 1958, specifically section 15, to ascertain the legal framework governing the executor's duties and the plaintiff's rights in this context. The court also needed to consider whether any exceptions or circumstances allowed for the executor to administer the estate without probate.

In its reasoning, the court found that the executor's administration without obtaining probate did not align with the statutory requirements set out in the Administration and Probate Act 1958. The court emphasised that section 15 of the Act mandates that an executor must obtain probate before administering an estate. Given that the executor had not followed this requirement, the court concluded that the executor's actions were not valid. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff's application, directing the executor to bring the will into court and for letters of administration with the will annexed to be issued. This decision ensured that the estate would be properly administered in accordance with the statutory provisions and that the plaintiff's claim for provision could proceed.

The court's final order was that the executor should present the will to the court and that letters of administration with the will annexed should be granted to the executor. This order facilitated the proper administration of the estate and allowed the plaintiff to pursue their claim for provision from the estate under the relevant statutory framework.

Orders