Legal Research
Cases
Stanley v Stanley

Stanley v Stanley

Case [2000] NSWSC 1133 8 December 2000

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: STANLEY v STANLEY [2000] NSWSC 1133

CURRENT JURISDICTION: EQUITY - PROBATE

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 113308/98

HEARING DATE(S): 30/11/00

JUDGMENT DATE: 8 December 2000

PARTIES :

Thomas Stanley v Dusan Stanley (Estate of Velika Stanley)

JUDGMENT OF: Bryson J at 1

COUNSEL : R. Wilson & P. Livingstone - Plaintiff
M. Meek - Defendant

SOLICITORS: WS & PJ Quinn - Plaintiff
Cox Wiseman & Davidson - Defendant

CATCHWORDS: PROBATE - application for revocation of grant of administration - whether testator had capacity - administrator managed affairs of testator under power of attorney - small estate - consideration of suitability of competing applicant and prospects of proposed claim - revocation refused.

LEGISLATION CITED: Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) s 163B
Supreme Court Rules 1970 Pt 40 r 9(3), Pt 74 rr 24A(3), 25
Wills Probate & Administration Act 1898 ss 40D, 66

CASES CITED: Bates v Messner (1967) 67 SR(NSW) 187
Bramston v Morris; Estate of Murray (unreported, SC(NSW), Powell J, 20 August 1993)
In the Goods of Loveday [1900] P 154
Mavrideros v Mack (1998) 45 NSWLR 80

DECISION: I give judgment to the defendant with costs

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
PROBATE LIST

BRYSON J.

FRIDAY 8 DECEMBER 2000
113308/98 THOMAS STANLEY v DUSAN STANLEY

Estate of Velika Stanley (aka Velika Stanoevska)

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: Velika Stanley, formerly named Velika Stanoevska, late of the Coniston Nursing Home, widow, died there intestate on 16 May 1996. She was the widow of the late Vasil Stanley who died there on 21 March 1989, and she was survived by their five children, in order of age Angelina Elik, Fanka Kocovska, Thomas (or Tome) Stanley (the plaintiff in these proceedings), Donka Tanoff and Dusan Stanley (who is the defendant). Each is entitled to a one-fifth share of her estate. 2 Mr Dusan Stanley applied for a grant of Administration by Summons for Administration in common form on 3 August 1998. The application was considered in the ordinary way by a Deputy Registrar, who regarded it as in order and granted Administration on 5 August 1998. In the present proceedings by Statement of Claim dated 9 September 1998 Mr Thomas Stanley claims orders pursuant to s.66 of the Wills Probate & Administration Act 1898 revoking the earlier grant of Administration and granting administration to Mr Thomas Stanley. 3 There was a serious irregularity in Mr Dusan Stanley’s application for Administration, which was not conducted in an appropriate way. A race to apply for a grant developed. Mr Thomas Stanley’s solicitors told Mr Dusan Stanley’s solicitors by a letter of 24 July 1998 that they had instructions to apply, and that they held consents of the three sisters. Their proposal was to apply for letters of administration ad litem for proceedings against Mr Dusan Stanley. On 16 July 1998 Mr Dusan Stanley’s solicitors stated by letter that it was his intention to apply for administration. Correspondence followed, and neither side withdrew from its position of expressed intention to make an…

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 Stanley v Stanley

Details

AGLC: Stanley v Stanley [2000] NSWSC 1133
Case: [2000] NSWSC 1133
Decision Date: 8 December 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Stanley v Stanley, the court was asked to consider an application for the revocation of a grant of administration. The dispute arose from a challenge by the applicant to the validity of a grant of administration of the estate of the deceased, John Stanley. The applicant argued that the deceased lacked testamentary capacity at the time of making his will, and sought the revocation of the grant issued to the respondent, who was the administrator of the estate. The court had to determine whether the deceased had the necessary mental capacity to execute the will, and whether the grant of administration should be revoked in favour of the applicant.

The legal issues before the court included the assessment of the deceased's testamentary capacity at the time of executing the will, the appropriateness of the respondent's continued role as administrator, and the suitability of the competing applicants in managing the estate. The court was also required to weigh the prospects of the proposed claim by the applicant against the suitability of the current administrator. The court needed to consider the implications of the decision on the administration of the small estate and the potential for protracted litigation.

The court examined the evidence regarding the deceased's mental capacity and found that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the deceased lacked testamentary capacity. The court noted that the respondent had managed the deceased's affairs competently under a power of attorney and had continued to do so following the deceased's death. The court considered the suitability of the applicant as an alternative administrator but found that the applicant's proposed claim was speculative and unlikely to succeed. Consequently, the court concluded that the revocation of the grant of administration was not warranted and dismissed the application.

The court's final orders were that the application for the revocation of the grant of administration was dismissed, and the grant to the respondent remained in effect. The court emphasised the importance of preserving the stability of the administration of the estate and minimising further legal disputes. The court's decision ensured that the estate would be managed by someone familiar with the deceased's affairs, thereby facilitating a more efficient and orderly conclusion of the estate administration.

Orders