Sneath v Sneath

Case [2014] QSC 152

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Sneath & Anor v Sneath & Ors [2014] QSC 152

PARTIES:

WILLIAM DOUGLAS SNEATH and
MALCOLM JAMES LISTON
(applicants)

v
ANDREW JOHN SNEATH
(first respondent)
CARMEL ADAMS
(second respondent)
JANE WHEELER

(third respondent)

FILE NO/S:

114 of 2014

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Cairns

DELIVERED EX-TEMPORE ON:

11 June 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

10 June 2014

JUDGE:

Henry J

ORDERS:

(1)     That the applicants in their capacity as the appointed executors and trustees of the last will of the late William Andrew John Sneath, dated 25 January 2011, would be justified in:

(a)     proceeding to transmit title to that piece or parcel of land situated in the county of Nares, parish of Dirran, described as lot 45 on Crown plan NR431, title reference 20781095, to William Douglas Sneath in accordance with clause 5 of the said will if the applicants notify the first respondent of a reasonable period within which he should, if he intends to do so, file a claim in respect of the alleged oral contract to sell the lot and if the first respondent does not within that period institute such a claim;

(b)     foregoing any claim to:

(i)    the 123 head of cattle thought to have been owned by the deceased as at 30 June 2012 and any progeny of those cattle;

(ii)   a Nissan Navara utility, former registration number 975 DXA, thought to have been owned by the deceased;

(iii) the deceased’s personal papers and effects;

(c)     payment of an interim distribution to each of the second respondent and the third respondent in the sum of $250,000.

(2)     The first respondent pay the applicants half their costs of and incidental to this application to be assessed on the standard basis, and the applicants may otherwise recover their costs assessed on the indemnity basis out of the estate.

CATCHWORDS:

SUCCESSION – ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATE – DISTRIBUTION – GENERALLY – where the executors of the estate seek direction in progressing the distribution of the deceased’s estate – where the first respondent claims the deceased (the first respondent’s father) contracted to sell the subject land to him – whether the executors would be justified in transmitting certain land devised under the deceased’s will, foregoing recovery of certain property bequeathed under the will and in making an interim financial distribution to some beneficiaries under the will

Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) s 10(2)
Property Law Act 1984 (Qld) s 59
Succession Act 1981 (Qld) s 52

Trusts Act 1973 (Qld) s 96, s 97

Coore v Coore (2013) QSC 196, considered
Freedom Homes Pty Ltd v Botros (2000) 2 Qd R 377, applied
Macedonian Church v Eminence Petar (2008) 237 CLR 66, considered
Marley v Mutual Security Merchant Bank and Trust Co Limited (1991) 3 All ER 198, cited

COUNSEL:

MA Jonsson for the applicants

The first respondent appeared on his own behalf
No appearance for the second and third respondents

SOLICITORS:

Lilley Grose & Long…

Continue reading Sneath v Sneath

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Sneath v Sneath [2014] QSC 152
Case
[2014] QSC 152
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Sneath v Sneath, the court was called upon to provide direction to the executors of William Andrew John Sneath's estate regarding the distribution of his assets. The deceased passed away on 25 January 2011, leaving behind a will that specified the distribution of his property. The first respondent, who is the son of the deceased, contended that his father had orally agreed to sell him a specific parcel of land, and therefore, the executors should not proceed with the distribution of the land as specified in the will. The executors sought the court's guidance on whether they could proceed with the distribution of the land, forego certain assets, and make an interim financial distribution to some beneficiaries.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the will, the validity of the first respondent's claim to an oral contract for the sale of the land, and the appropriate course of action for the executors in distributing the estate's assets. The court needed to determine if the executors were justified in proceeding with the distribution of the land to the first respondent, foregoing certain assets, and making interim distributions to some beneficiaries, subject to the first respondent's potential claim regarding the oral contract.

The court found that the executors would be justified in transmitting the title of the specified land to the first respondent, provided they gave him a reasonable period to file a claim regarding the alleged oral contract. If the first respondent did not file a claim within that period, the executors could proceed with the distribution as per the will. Additionally, the executors could forego any claim to specific assets and could make an interim financial distribution to certain beneficiaries. The court ordered the first respondent to pay half of the executors' costs of the application, with the executors able to recover the remaining costs from the estate.

The court's final orders included directions for the executors to proceed with the distribution of the land under certain conditions, to forego claims to specific assets, and to make interim distributions to some beneficiaries. The first respondent was also ordered to pay half of the executors' costs of the application. The executors could recover the remaining costs from the estate.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) That the applicants in their capacity as the appointed executors and trustees of the last will of the late William Andrew John Sneath, dated 25 January 2011, would be justified in:

(a) proceeding to transmit title to that piece or parcel of land situated in the county of Nares, parish of Dirran, described as lot 45 on Crown plan NR431, title reference 20781095, to William Douglas Sneath in accordance with clause 5 of the said will if the applicants notify the first respondent of a reasonable period within which he should, if he intends to do so, file a claim in respect of the alleged oral contract to sell the lot and if the first respondent does not within that period institute such a claim;

(b) foregoing any claim to:

(i) the 123 head of cattle thought to have been owned by the deceased as at 30 June 2012 and any progeny of those cattle;

(ii) a Nissan Navara utility, former registration number 975 DXA, thought to have been owned by the deceased;

(iii) the deceased’s personal papers and effects;

(c) payment of an interim distribution to each of the second respondent and the third respondent in the sum of $250,000.

(2) The first respondent pay the applicants half their costs of and incidental to this application to be assessed on the standard basis, and the applicants may otherwise recover their costs assessed on the indemnity basis out of the estate.

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.