Wales v Vrsecky - [2015] VSC 223

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

COMMERCIAL COURT

S ECI 2014 000144

GLADYS WALES (as executrix of the estate of BEVERLY HUTCHISON, deceased)	Plaintiff
v
PETR VRSECKY (as trustee of the Wales Trusts)	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	McMillan J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	17 April 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	1 June 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Wales v Vrsecky
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 223

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Proceeding brought against defendant as trustee of trusts — Where beneficiaries of trusts seek permissive joinder to proceeding — Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005, r 9.06(b)(i) — Civil Procedure Act 2010, s 7 — News Ltd v Australian Rugby Football League (1996) 139 ALR 193 — Young v Murphy [1996] 1 VR 279

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr P B Murdoch QC	HWL Ebsworth
Mr C M Archibald
For the Defendant	Mr S R Senathirajah	Lawson Hughes Peter Walsh
For the Applicants Rohan Wales and Persephone Wales (as the representative of the estate of Murray Wright Wales, deceased)	Mr R C Wells	Tolhurst Druce and Emmerson

HER HONOUR:

Background

The plaintiff is the executrix of the estate of Beverley Hutchison, deceased, who died on 3 September 2010. The plaintiff’s daughters, Roslyn Matear and Suzanne Case, are the beneficiaries of the estate of Beverley Hutchison.

Until their removal by orders made on 27 November 2013,[1] the plaintiff and her daughters were trustees (‘the former trustees’) of four trusts: the HN Wales 1954 Trust, the HN Wales 1963 Trust, the BMR Hutchison Trust and the MEM Wales Trust (‘the trusts’). The defendant, Mr Petr Vrsecky of the firm, Lawler Draper Dillon, was appointed the trustee of the trusts in place of the former trustees.
[1]Wales v Wales [2013] VSC 569 (24 October 2013).

Beverley Hutchison was the income beneficiary of the trusts. Upon her death, the remainder interests of the capital beneficiaries in the trusts vested in possession. The capital beneficiaries of the trusts are the plaintiff’s daughters, the estate of Murray Wright Wales, and his children, Rohan Wales, Julian Wales and Ashley Wales, with differing shares between the plaintiff’s daughters and the other capital beneficiaries.[2]
[2]Pursuant to the HN Wales 1954 Trust the distribution was, in fact, to be divided between the estate of Murray Wright Wales as to half and the plaintiff’s daughters, being the children of his brother, Geoffrey Wales, as to the remaining half. With the death of Murray Wright Wales on 2 April 2013, his children being Rohan Wales, Julian Wales and Ashley Wales, became entitled to his half share of the HN Wales 1954 Trust. As to the other three trusts, the capital is to be distributed in equal shares between the plaintiff’s daughters and Rohan Wales, Julian Wales and Ashley Wales. Further details of the trusts are outlined in Wales v Wales [2013] VSC 569 (24 October 2013) 2–3.

As will become apparent, the capital beneficiaries hold…

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 Wales v Vrsecky

Details

AGLC: Wales v Vrsecky [2015] VSC 223
Case: [2015] VSC 223
Decision Date: 1 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wales v Vrsecky was brought before the court by the beneficiaries of a trust against Vrsecky, who was acting as the trustee of that trust. The beneficiaries sought permissive joinder to a proceeding that had already been initiated by another party against Vrsecky in his capacity as trustee. The legal issues before the court were whether the beneficiaries had the right to join the proceeding under the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005, and whether such joinder was permissible under the Civil Procedure Act 2010.

The court examined the relevant rules and statutes, considering the principles outlined in News Ltd v Australian Rugby Football League and Young v Murphy. The court found that the beneficiaries had a legitimate interest in the proceeding as they were directly affected by the outcome. Furthermore, the court determined that the joinder was permissible under the Civil Procedure Act 2010, as it aligned with the broader objectives of ensuring just, quick, and cheap resolution of the real issues in the proceeding. The court concluded that the beneficiaries' joinder was appropriate and would not unduly prejudice the defendant.

The court's decision was grounded in the recognition of the beneficiaries' right to participate in proceedings that directly affect their interests, as well as the overarching goal of efficient dispute resolution. The court allowed the beneficiaries to join the proceeding, thereby facilitating a comprehensive resolution of all related matters. As a result of the court's ruling, the beneficiaries were permitted to be part of the existing proceeding, ensuring that all relevant parties were represented and their interests adequately considered.

Orders