Legal Research
Cases
Wood v Inglis

Wood v Inglis

Case [2008] NSWSC 1427 16 December 2008

Executors and Administrators

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Wood v Inglis [2008] NSWSC 1427

HEARING DATE(S): 16 December 2008

JURISDICTION: Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF: Brereton J

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 16 December 2008

DECISION: Summons dismissed with costs

CATCHWORDS: SUCCESSION – executors and administrators – proceedings against executors and administrators – where Will provides for transfer of shares in trustee company to plaintiffs – where trust owes estate an undetermined sum – whether shares are held by executors as constructive trustees while other assets of estate remain held by the executors in their capacity as executors - where estate has not been fully administered – where plaintiffs have indicated that they will distribute trust assets if given control of trust company – where shares could be subject of potential (NSW) Family Provision Act 1984 application – whether Court should summarily order transfer of shares to plaintiffs

LEGISLATION CITED: (NSW) Family Provision Act 1982
(NSW) Trustee Act 1925, s 11
(NSW) Wills Probate and Administration Act 1898, s 84

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Indyk v Wiernik [2006] NSWSC 868
Re Anderson (1953) 53 SR (NSW) 520
Re Cowell (1895) 16 LR (NSW) B&P 51
Re Gannon (1915) 15 SR (NSW) 251
Re York (1894) 15 LR (NSW) B&P 24
Wood v Inglis [2008] NSWSC 1147

PARTIES: Pamela Ruth Wood (first plaintiff)
Kathryn Margaret Clark (second plaintiff)
Helen Margaret Inglis (defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 5774/08

COUNSEL: Ms J A Needham SC (plaintiffs)
Mr J E Thomson (defendant)

SOLICITORS: Wills & Estates Legal Service (plaintiffs)
Michael C Smith (defendant)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

BRERETON J

Tuesday 16 December 2008

5774/08 Pamela Ruth Wood and anor v Helen Margaret Inglis

JUDGMENT (ex tempore)

1 HIS HONOUR: The plaintiffs Mrs Pamela Ruth Wood and Ms Kathryn Margaret Clark are children of the first marriage of the deceased, Dr William Inglis, whose second wife and widow Mrs Helen Margaret Inglis is the defendant. Mrs Wood and Mrs Inglis are the executors of Dr Inglis’ estate. Mrs Wood and Ms Clark seek an order pursuant to (NSW) Wills Probate and Administration Act 1898, s 84, for the transfer to them forthwith of four shares each of the eight shares that the deceased held in Inglis Research Pty Ltd, which is the trustee of a discretionary trust called the Inglis Research Trust. It is common ground that the shares in Inglis Research Pty Ltd have no commercial value. Their significance is that they carry with them control of the trustee company and thus of the trust, in circumstances where there is no appointor or custodian under the trust deed.

2 I do not accept that, apart from adoption of the procedure provided by the (NSW) Trustee Act 1925, s 11, an executor can become constructive trustee of specific estate assets to the exclusion of the other estate assets, while retaining executorial duties in relation to the remainder. Accordingly, I do not accept that it can be said that the shares are held by the executors, as constructive…

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 Wood v Inglis

Details

AGLC: Wood v Inglis [2008] NSWSC 1427
Case: [2008] NSWSC 1427
Decision Date: 16 December 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wood v Inglis involved a dispute regarding the administration of an estate and the transfer of shares in a trustee company. The plaintiffs, who were intended beneficiaries under the will, sought to compel the executors of the estate to transfer the shares to them, arguing that they should hold the shares as constructive trustees. The will in question provided for the transfer of shares in a trustee company to the plaintiffs, but the trust owed the estate an undetermined sum. The plaintiffs argued that the shares should be transferred to them while the other assets of the estate remained held by the executors in their capacity as executors. The court was required to determine whether the shares should be transferred to the plaintiffs or if they should remain with the executors until the estate was fully administered.

The legal issues that the court had to decide included whether the shares could be transferred to the plaintiffs despite the estate not being fully administered, and whether the court should summarily order the transfer of the shares to the plaintiffs. The court also had to consider the potential impact of a Family Provision Act 1984 application on the shares, as well as the plaintiffs' intention to distribute the trust assets if given control of the trust company. The court noted that the plaintiffs had not applied for an order to distribute the trust assets, and that the shares could be subject to a potential Family Provision Act application.

In its decision, the court held that the shares should remain with the executors until the estate was fully administered. The court found that the plaintiffs had not established a compelling case for the summary transfer of the shares, and that the potential impact of a Family Provision Act application on the shares was a significant factor to consider. The court also noted that the plaintiffs had not applied for an order to distribute the trust assets, and that the shares could be subject to a potential Family Provision Act application. The court concluded that the shares should remain with the executors until the estate was fully administered, and that the plaintiffs' request for a summary transfer of the shares was not justified. No further orders were made by the court.

Orders