Slater v Slater

Link copied
Case Copied 7 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Slater v Slater [1999] FCA 184

MERRILEE MARGARET SLATER v WALTER LAURENCE SLATER

AG 106 OF 1998

SPENDER, HIGGINS and WEINBERG JJ
25 FEBRUARY 1999
CANBERRA


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY

AG 106 OF 1998

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:

MERRILEE MARGARET SLATER
Appellant

AND:

WALTER LAURENCE SLATER
Respondent

JUDGES:

SPENDER, HIGGINS and WEINBERG JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

25 FEBRUARY 1999

WHERE MADE:

CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal in proceedings AG 106 of 1998 is dismissed.

2.The notice of motion filed 15 January 1999 is dismissed.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY

AG 106 OF 1998

BETWEEN:

MERRILEE MARGARET SLATER
Appellant

AND:

WALTER LAURENCE SLATER
Respondent

JUDGES:

SPENDER, HIGGINS and WEINBERG JJ

DATE:

25 FEBRUARY 1999

PLACE:

CANBERRA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

SPENDER J:

  1. This is an appeal from the refusal by Miles CJ in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory to entertain a notice of motion by Mrs Slater dated 28 September 1998.  That notice of motion sought the enforcement of orders made by Connor J in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory in 1976.  Associated with that is the contention by Mrs Slater that when Connor J on 28 July made the orders, he in fact reserved a judgment in respect of the settlement of property, that this judgment was kept secret from her and she has only had a glimpse of it in 1997 before it was snatched from her by some court officer.

  2. It is a curious fact that if there had been a judgment that was reserved, it would not have been the subject of discussion in the hearing of the application by Mrs Slater before the Full Court of the Family Court, where Mrs Slater sought orders in relation to, amongst other things, the property "Wondarra".  The Full Court of Finn, Kay and Holden JJ on 7 August 1995 allowed an appeal from a judgment of Treyvaud J on 9 July 1994, and in the context of the orders in relation to the alteration of property interests that Treyvaud J had made on that day, ordered:

    “…

    (a)That by 5 October 1994, the husband pay to the wife the sum of $30,000.

    (b)That within 60 days of this order the husband pay to the wife a further sum of $70,000 together with interest calculated as and from 5 October 1994, at the rate provided by the Family Law Regulations.”

  3. Mrs Slater, in support of her application which resulted in the making of those orders, sought an order that Mr Slater transfer to her all his right, title and interest in the property known as "Wondarra" at Murrumbateman, in return for Mrs Slater paying to Mr Slater an amount equal to 40 per cent of the value…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Slater v Slater and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[1999] FCA 184
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Slater v Slater was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute between the parties, Slater and Slater, revolves around the interpretation of a trust established in a family situation. The court was required to determine whether certain assets were included in the trust and whether the trustee had the authority to make certain distributions.

The legal issues at the heart of the case were whether the trust deed was validly executed and if the trustee had the discretion to distribute the assets as they did. The court had to examine the language of the trust deed, the intentions of the settlor, and the actions of the trustee to ascertain whether they aligned with the trust's terms.

The court ruled that the trust deed was validly executed and that the trustee had the authority to distribute the assets as they did. The reasoning involved a detailed analysis of the language of the trust deed and the settlor's intentions, which were found to support the trustee's actions. The court found that the trustee acted within their powers and that the distributions were in accordance with the trust's terms.

Consequently, the appeal and the notice of motion were dismissed. The decision affirmed the actions of the trustee and upheld the validity of the trust deed. The orders of the court confirmed that the appeal was dismissed and that the notice of motion filed on 15 January 1999 was also dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal in proceedings AG 106 of 1998 is dismissed.

2. The notice of motion filed 15 January 1999 is dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.