Wigley v Crozier - [1909] HCA 86

9 CLR 425

WIGLEY AND ANOTHER

APPELLANTS; DEFENDANTS, CROZIER

RESPONDENT. PLAINTIFF,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF Will-Trust for conversion-Power - to suspend conversion-Appropriation towards

annuity-Proper time for conversion-Interest on arrears of annuity-Amend ment as to parties-Representative character.

A testator by his will and codicil devised and bequeathed all his real and personal estate to trustees upon trust for conversion, with power to postpone conversion as they should judge expedient and with full power of manage- ment pending conversion, He directed his trustees until "final conversion" of his estate to pay to his daughter R. an annuity of £300, which was to be a first charge on his estate, and, if his estate would allow and produce the same, to his daughter-in-law C. an annuity of £200. He then directed that as to the proceeds of conversion the trustees should set aside such a sum as his trustees should deem sufficient for providing by investment in such manner as his trustees should think fit an annuity of £300 for R. and, if his estate would extend thereto, such a sum as would produce an annuity not to exceed £200 for C. Subsequently, at a time when there had been no con- version and when there were large arrears owing on both annuities, an indenture was executed between the trustees and R. and her two daughters by which, after reciting that all the parties thereto believed that it would be more beneficial for the estate and for the interests of all persons interested therein that the conversion should be further postponed, the trustees pur- ported to appropriate the whole of the estate of the testator, subject to the payment of arrears of R.'s annuity, for the purpose of providing for the

9 CLR 426

annuity to R., and to settle the property so appropriated for the benefit of R. and her daughters, and to settle the amount of the arrears, which R. purported to assign to the trustees, for the benefit of such daughters,

Held, that the trustees must be taken to have believed, as recited in the indenture, that it was more beneficial for those interested in the estate that conversion should be further postponed; that neither R. nor her daughters nor all of them was or were then entitled to demand immediate payment or appropriation of any sum of money; that, therefore, the trustees were not then entitled to convert the estate; and, therefore, that the indenture was void and inoperative as against C.

In re Lepine; Dowsett v. Culver, (1892) I Ch. 210, distinguished. Held, also, that R. was not entitled to receive interest on the arrears of her annuity from the time of the execution of the indenture.

To the originating summons by which this matter was brought before the Supreme Court, the surviving trustee of the will and codicil, who was also the surviving trustee of the indenture, was a defendant, but he was described therein only as trustee of the will and codicil. R.…

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 Wigley v Crozier

Details

AGLC: Wigley v Crozier [1909] HCA 86
Case: [1909] HCA 86
Decision Date: 1 October 1909

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wigley v Crozier concerned an appeal from the Supreme Court of South Australia regarding the administration of a deceased testator's estate. The plaintiff, Elizabeth Ann Crozier, sought to establish her entitlement to arrears of an annuity and to have a portion of the estate set aside to provide for her future annuity payments. The primary dispute centred on the validity of an indenture executed between the testator's trustees and his daughter, Elizabeth Richardson, and her daughters, which purported to appropriate the entire estate for the benefit of Mrs. Richardson and her children, subject to the payment of arrears of her annuity.

The legal issues before the High Court included whether the trustees were entitled to execute the indenture at the time it was made, given the terms of the will and the state of the estate. Specifically, the court had to determine if the indenture constituted a valid appropriation of the estate for the purpose of securing Mrs. Richardson's annuity, and if so, whether this appropriation was lawful and binding on Mrs. Crozier, who was also a beneficiary. The court was also required to consider whether Mrs. Richardson was entitled to interest on the arrears of her annuity.

The court reasoned that the trustees' power to postpone conversion was subject to their judgment of what was expedient for the estate and the interests of all beneficiaries. The indenture itself recited a belief that postponing conversion would be more beneficial for the estate and its interested parties. However, the court found that at the time of the indenture's execution, neither Mrs. Richardson nor her daughters were entitled to demand immediate payment or appropriation of any sum of money from the estate. Consequently, the trustees were not in a position to lawfully convert the estate for the purpose of appropriation. The court held that the indenture was therefore void and inoperative as against Mrs. Crozier, as it purported to appropriate the entire estate without the trustees being in a position to do so without breaching their trust obligations to other beneficiaries. The court also determined that Mrs. Richardson was not entitled to interest on the arrears of her annuity.

The High Court varied the decision of the Supreme Court, allowing amendments to the originating summons to add a party and correctly describe the trustee's representative character. The court ultimately found the indenture to be invalid as an appropriation of the estate, thereby upholding Mrs. Crozier's claims to a portion of the arrears and to have her annuity secured from the estate.

Orders