Legal Research
Cases
Steiner v Strang

Steiner v Strang

Case [2016] NSWSC 395 12 April 2016

Employment & Labour Law

Contract Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Steiner v Strang [2016] NSWSC 395
Hearing dates: 19, 20, 21 November & 15 December 2014; 12 March 2015, 15 & 16 April 2015, 19 May 2015 (directions in chambers)
Date of orders: 12 April 2016
Decision date: 12 April 2016
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Slattery J
Decision:
The $1.2 million cheque the deceased wrote in April 2009 was a gift to her daughter and son-in-law. The deceased’s estate has no entitlement to long service leave from the deceased’s former employer under the Long Service Leave Act 1955. The estate owes the deceased’s daughter and son-in-law $15,000.

Catchwords:
SUCCESSION – action by residuary beneficiary on behalf of estate for the recovery of monies claimed to be owed to an estate – executors unwilling to bring action – deceased worked in a bridal couturier business for approximately 25 years before her death.

GIFTS – two and a half years before she died, the deceased wrote a cheque in favour of her son-in-law for approximately $1.2 million – whether the deceased gifted the cheque monies to her son-in-law and daughter, or whether the cheque monies were a loan to them from the deceased.

EMPLOYMENT - beneficiaries claim the deceased was entitled under the Long Service Leave Act 1955 to long service leave in respect of her employment with a corporate entity controlling this business in which entity she held a substantial shareholding interest - whether the deceased was a ‘worker” within the Act – whether the deceased worked continuously for the corporate entity – whether the deceased was entitled to long service leave.
RESTITUTION – the deceased requests her son-in-law to pay $15,000 to her son on account of the son’s then anticipated medical expenses – whether the sum of $15,000 is recoverable by the son in restitution from the deceased’s estate.
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 2005, s 78
Limitation Act 1969
Long Service Leave Act 1955, ss 3, 4(1), 4(2), 4(5) 4(9), 4(11), 7, 8, 12
Succession Act 2006, s 59
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, rr 6.20, 6.25 and 7.11(1)
Cases Cited: Apand Pty Limited v Kettle Chip Co Pty Limited (1994) 52 FCR 474
A J Mills & Sons Proprietary Limited v Transport Workers’ Union of New South Wales (2009) 187 IR 56
David Securities Pty Limited and Others v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1992) 175 CLR 353
Dilosa v Latec Finance Pty Limited (1966) 84 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 557; [1966] 1 NSWLR 259
Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc (2002) 209 CLR 95
Fabre v Arenalis (1992) 27 NSWLR 437
Fried v NAB (2001) 111FCR 322
Heydon v The Perpetual Executors Trustee and Agency Company (W.A.) Ltd (1930) 45 CLR 111
Bouts v Ellis (1853) 17 Beav. 121, 51 ER 978
George v Howard (1819) 146 ER
1089
Ho v Powell (2001) 51 NSWLR 572
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
McCausland v Surfing Hardware International Holdings Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 902
Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd…

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 Steiner v Strang

Details

AGLC: Steiner v Strang [2016] NSWSC 395
Case: [2016] NSWSC 395
Decision Date: 12 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Steiner v Strang, the plaintiff, Steiner, sought to recover monies on behalf of the estate of the deceased, who was his mother. The defendants were the executors of the estate, who were reluctant to bring the action. The deceased had worked in a bridal couturier business for around 25 years before her death. The plaintiff alleged that the estate was owed several sums of money, including a $1.2 million cheque written by the deceased to her son-in-law two and a half years before her death, and long service leave entitlements under the Long Service Leave Act 1955. The defendants disputed the plaintiff's claims. The court was required to determine whether the cheque represented a gift to the son-in-law and daughter or a loan, and whether the deceased was entitled to long service leave. The court also had to consider whether a $15,000 payment requested by the deceased from her son-in-law for her son's anticipated medical expenses was recoverable by the son from the deceased’s estate.

The court first examined the cheque issued by the deceased to her son-in-law. It found that the cheque did not constitute a gift but rather a loan to the son-in-law and daughter. The court's reasoning was based on the lack of any intention to make a gift and the absence of any evidence to suggest that the deceased intended the cheque to be a gift. The court then turned to the issue of long service leave. The court held that the deceased was not a "worker" within the meaning of the Long Service Leave Act 1955 as she held a substantial shareholding interest in the corporate entity that controlled the business in which she worked. The court found that the deceased had not worked continuously for the corporate entity, and therefore was not entitled to long service leave. Finally, the court considered the $15,000 payment. The court found that the deceased's request for the payment was made with the intention that it be repaid, and that the son-in-law was not bound to pay the sum. Therefore, the sum of $15,000 was not recoverable by the son in restitution from the deceased’s estate.

The court ordered that the sum of $1.2 million be recovered from the son-in-law and daughter as a loan and that the sum of $15,000 was not recoverable by the son in restitution from the deceased’s estate. The court did not make any orders regarding the claim for long service leave as the deceased was not entitled to it.

Orders