Shepherd v Doolan & OrsShepherd v Doolan & Anor; Est. Doolan [2005] NSWSC 42
HEARING DATE(S):
31/01/05, 01/02/05, 02/02/05, 07/02/05
JUDGMENT DATE :
10 August 2005
JUDGMENT OF:
White J
DECISION:
Direct counsel for the plaintiff to bring in short minutes of order in accordance with reasons.
CATCHWORDS:
TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES - Plaintiff claims a beneficial interest in property forming part of deceased estate on the basis of either a resulting or constructive trust - Whether money contributed to the acquisition of a weekend lease from the Crown was part of cost acquiring title in fee simple - Whether plaintiff and deceased had a common intention that the former have a beneficial interest in property - Whether plaintiff acted to her detriment in reliance upon this common intention - Held that common intention need not extend to quantum of beneficial interest and plaintiff had a beneficial interest under a Grant v Edwards constructive trust - SUCCESSION - Wills - Family Provision - Application by de facto wife - Family Provision Act s 7 - Provision made.
Joyce Edith Shepherd v Laurence Patrick Doolan & Ors;
Joyce Edith Shepherd v Laurence Patrick Doolan & 1 Or; Estate of William Daniel Doolan
FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 1269/03; 3186/04
COUNSEL:
Plaintiff: Mr D Williams Defendants: Mr P Glissan
SOLICITORS:
Plaintiff: Herbert Weller Solicitor Defendants: Mervyn J Cathers & Co Solicitors
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION FPA LIST
WHITE J
Wednesday,…
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 Shepherd v Doolan
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Shepherd v Doolan [2005] NSWSC 42
Case
[2005] NSWSC 42
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter before the court was Shepherd v Doolan, where the plaintiff sought a beneficial interest in a property that formed part of the deceased's estate. The plaintiff argued that she was entitled to either a resulting or constructive trust over the property. The central issue was whether the funds contributed by the plaintiff to acquire a weekend lease from the Crown should be considered part of the cost of acquiring the fee simple title to the property. Additionally, the court needed to determine if there was a common intention between the plaintiff and the deceased that the former would have a beneficial interest in the property, and if the plaintiff had acted to her detriment in reliance upon this common intention. The court found that the common intention did not need to specify the exact quantum of the beneficial interest and that the plaintiff had a beneficial interest under a constructive trust as per Grant v Edwards. The de facto wife of the deceased also applied under the Family Provision Act s 7, seeking provision from the estate.
In arriving at its decision, the court examined the nature of the relationship between the plaintiff and the deceased and the contributions made by the plaintiff towards the acquisition of the property. It held that a common intention regarding the beneficial interest in the property did not need to be explicitly defined in terms of the extent of the interest. The court found that the plaintiff had a beneficial interest under a constructive trust, which arose from the common intention that she would have a beneficial interest in the property. The court also considered the application by the de facto wife under the Family Provision Act and determined that provision should be made from the estate. The court's reasoning was grounded in the established principles of equity and the law of trusts, as well as the relevant statutory provisions. The outcome of the case was that the plaintiff was entitled to a beneficial interest in the property, and the de facto wife's application for provision from the estate was successful.
The final orders of the court were that the plaintiff was granted a beneficial interest in the property under a constructive trust, and the de facto wife's application for provision from the estate was successful. The court ordered that appropriate provision be made from the estate to the de facto wife under the Family Provision Act. The decision in Shepherd v Doolan provides valuable guidance for practitioners dealing with similar cases involving trusts and succession matters, particularly in relation to the application of constructive trusts and the Family Provision Act. The court's reasoning highlights the importance of considering the common intention between parties and the detrimental reliance on that intention when determining beneficial interests in property.