SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Smith & ors v Wessling-Smith & ors [2017] QSC 166
PARTIES:
RITA CARMEN SMITH AS THE EXECUTOR FOR THE ESTATE OF GERALD STUART SMITH DECEASED
(first plaintiff)
RITA CARMEN SMITH, ADAM GERHARD SMITH AND GRETCHEN EMMA SMITH
(second plaintiff)
v
BENJAMIN MORRISON WESSLING-SMITH AND LUKE JAMES SMITH AS EXECUTORS FOR THE ESTATE OF JOAN MARGARET SMITH DECEASED
(first defendant)
RONALD STRATTON SMITH
(second defendant)
IAN MORRISON SMITH
(third defendant)
FILE NO/S:
SC No 5502 of 2015
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Claim
DELIVERED ON:
11 August 2017
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
12, 13, 14 and 16 December 2016
JUDGE:
Bond J
ORDER:
The plaintiffs’ claims are dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:
CONTRACTS – GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES – FORMATION OF CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS – where the plaintiffs allege that three brothers agreed that they would not make a claim against their deceased father’s will while their mother was alive, but would distribute her estate equally among themselves when she died – whether certain conversations said to give rise to the agreement occurred – whether there was an intention to create legal relations
EVIDENCE – ADMISSIBILITY – HEARSAY – EXCEPTIONS – where the first plaintiff gave evidence of a conversation with her husband in which he told her about an agreement he had reached with his brothers – where the plaintiffs allege that the statement about the executory contract is admissible as a declaration against interest – whether the statement is admissible as a declaration against interest
Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), s 55
Kennedy & Hunt v Griffiths [2011] QSC 369, cited
Lloyd v Powell Duffryn Steam Coal Co Ltd [1914] AC 733, cited
R v The Inhabitants of Worth (1843) 4 QB 132, cited
Vosnakis v Arfaras [2015] NSWSC 625, citedWard v H S Pitt & Co [1913] 2 KB 130, cited
J D Heydon, Cross on Evidence (LexisNexis Butterworths, 10th ed, 2015)
COUNSEL:
M Horvath for the plaintiffs
R T Whiteford for the defendants
SOLICITORS:
Michael Cooper Lawyer for the plaintiffs
McCullough Robertson for the defendants
Introduction
William and Joan Smith married in 1947. They had three sons: Ron, Ian and Gerald. At all times material to this proceeding each of the sons was married with two children.
William died in 1991, leaving his estate to Joan. There is no evidence which suggests that any of their sons felt aggrieved by that outcome.
Gerald died of cancer in 2001, aged 51. He left behind a widow (Rita) and their two children, Adam and Gretchen, then aged 25 and 21 respectively.
Joan died in 2014 aged 99, 23 years after Williams’s death, and 13 years after Gerald’s death. Her estate was worth not less than $2,960,000, and was comprised of personal property, cash investments, a life insurance policy, and certain real estate.
In her last will, dated 10 May 2013, Joan preferred Ron and Ian and their families over Gerald’s family. She divided her personal property between Ron and his two children…
Continue reading Smith v Wessling-Smith
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Smith v Wessling-Smith [2017] QSC 166
- Case
- [2017] QSC 166
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues addressed by the court involved the formation of a contractual relationship and the admissibility of certain evidence. The plaintiffs had to establish that an agreement existed and that there was an intention to create legal relations. Additionally, the court examined whether a statement made by one of the plaintiffs to his spouse, recounting an agreement with his brothers, was admissible as a declaration against interest.
The court found that the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish the existence of the alleged agreement. The conversations purportedly giving rise to the agreement were not substantiated, and the court determined that there was no clear intention to create legal relations. Furthermore, the court held that the statement made to the first plaintiff's spouse was inadmissible hearsay, as it did not qualify as a declaration against interest. Consequently, the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed.
The court's final order was that the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in their entirety, with no costs awarded to either party.
Orders
Orders of the court
The plaintiffs’ claims are 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.