Woodley v Woodley

Link copied
Case Copied 73 min read

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT  :   THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)

CITATION:   WOODLEY -v- WOODLEY [2018] WASCA 149

CORAM:   MURPHY JA

MITCHELL JA

BEECH JA

HEARD:   6 AUGUST 2018

DELIVERED          :   30 AUGUST 2018

FILE NO/S:   CACV 46 of 2017

BETWEEN:   TERRY RAY WOODLEY

Appellant

AND

ROSS MAXWELL WOODLEY

First Respondent

RAYMOND THOMAS WOODLEY

Second Respondent

WAYNE CHARLES WOODLEY

Third Respondent

ANN CHERYL LEWIS

Fourth Respondent

ROSLYN PATRICIA WOODLEY

Fifth Respondent

KIM REBECCA WOODLEY

Sixth Respondent

ANGELA WOODLEY

Seventh Respondent

NATALIE CHANTELLE BIRCH

Eighth Respondent

MORGAN LEE WOODLEY

Ninth Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction              :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram:   PRITCHARD J

Citation: WOODLEY -v- WOODLEY [No 2] [2017] WASC 94

File Number            :   CIV 1821 of 2013


Catchwords:

Courts and judges - procedural fairness - whether judge failed to afford procedural fairness to self represented litigant

Wills and probate - passing over of executor - whether judge erred in refusing to pass over two named executors - whether judge erred in passing over one of the named executors - turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal dismissed
Application to adduce additional evidence dismissed

Category:    B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In Person
First Respondent : Mr P G Donovan & Ms H J Burnside
Second Respondent : No appearance
Third Respondent : No appearance
Fourth Respondent : No appearance
Fifth Respondent : Mr P G Donovan & Ms H J Burnside
Sixth Respondent : No appearance
Seventh Respondent : No appearance
Eighth Respondent : No appearance
Ninth Respondent : No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant : In Person
First Respondent : MDS Legal
Second Respondent : No appearance
Third Respondent : No appearance
Fourth Respondent : No appearance
Fifth Respondent : MDS Legal
Sixth Respondent : No appearance
Seventh Respondent : No appearance
Eighth Respondent : No appearance
Ninth Respondent : No appearance

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Frank Robinson Helicopter Co Inc v McDermott [2016] HCA 22; (2016) 90 ALJR 679

Mijatovic v Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee [2008] WASCA 115; (2008) 37 WAR 149

Nobarani v Mariconte [2018] HCA 36

Rajski v Scitec Corporation Pty Ltd [1986] NSWCA 1

RCR Tomlinson Ltd v Russell [2017] WASCA 129

Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; Ex parte Lam [2003] HCA 6; (2003) 214 CLR 1

Saunders v The Public Trustee [2015] WASCA 203

Stone v Braun [2015] WASCA 103

Ugle v The State of Western Australia [2018] WASCA 97

University of Wollongong v Metwally [No 2] [1985] HCA 28; (1985) 59 ALJR 481

Water Board v Moustakas [1988] HCA 12; (1988) 180 CLR 491

Woodley v Woodley [No 2] [2017] WASC 94

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:

Introduction

  1. Mr Thomas and Mrs Shirley Woodley were farmers.  They had five children.  Both Mr and Mrs Woodley have died.  Regrettably, since their parents' deaths, the children have been in dispute over many matters relating to their parents' estates.

  2. This appeal concerns the question of who should be the executor of…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Woodley v Woodley and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2018] WASCA 149
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Woodley v Woodley, the appeal was brought by Terry against the decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia, which was presided over by Justice Reeves. The appeal centred around the probate of a will and the appointment of executors. Terry contested the suitability of the proposed executors, Ross and Ray, and sought their removal. The appeal raised questions about whether the trial judge had afforded procedural fairness to the self-represented litigant and whether the judge had erred in either refusing to or improperly passing over the named executors.

The legal issues before the court involved the application of procedural fairness principles to the conduct of the trial judge and the correctness of the judge's findings regarding the suitability of the proposed executors. The appeal contested the judge's refusal to pass over the executors based on certain allegations, as well as the judge's decision to pass over one of the named executors. The court was required to determine whether the judge had adhered to the principles of procedural fairness and whether her findings on the suitability of the executors were supported by the evidence.

The court found that the appeal did not successfully challenge the judge's adherence to procedural fairness. The court held that the law of procedural fairness is concerned with avoiding practical injustice, and that the judge's actions were consistent with this principle. The appeal's contention that the judge had failed to consider certain documents and had made errors in interpreting the will were rejected as the findings in question were not critical to the judge's conclusions. Furthermore, the appeal's argument that the judge had erred in her findings regarding the executors' conflicts of interest and conduct was found to be misdirected, as the judge had not made the findings attributed to her. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal and to affirm the decision of the trial judge in its entirety. The court held that the trial judge had correctly applied the law and that the findings regarding the executors were supported by the evidence. The appeal was unsuccessful, and the decision of the trial court remained intact.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Fairness is essentially a practical concept. It is not abstract in nature. The law of procedural fairness is concerned to avoid practical injustice.[106][106] Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; Ex parte Lam [2003] HCA 6; (2003) 214 CLR 1 [37]; Mijatovic v Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee [2008] WASCA 115; (2008) 37 WAR 149 [4], [55]; Ugle v The State of Western Australia [2018] WASCA 97 [39]. Terry's submissions in support of ground 6 are brief. Terry submits that documents tendered at trial establish a claim for a debt owing by Wayne to Thomas and Shirley.[160] Terry further submits that, contrary to the judge's finding, cl 3 of Shirley's will did not forgive a debt of this character owed by Wayne.[161] [160] Appellant's submissions [49].[161] Appellant's submissions [50] ‑ [51]. Ground 6 goes nowhere because it attacks a finding that provided an additional, but unnecessary, basis for the judge's critical findings. Any error of the judge in relation to the effect of cl 3 of Shirley's will is immaterial to her Honour's conclusions. As explained in [130] ‑ [134] above, none of her Honour's critical findings or conclusion in relation to the relevant pleaded allegations is impugned by ground 6. In particular, none of the following conclusions are impugned:(1)There was no evidence that Tracenia Nominees owed any money to the estate.[162](2)There was nothing to suggest that, as at October 2011, Ray or Ross had any knowledge of the existence of a debt by Tracenia Nominees or Wayne to the estate.[163](3)Thus, there was nothing to suggest that it was unreasonable for Ross and Ray to have failed to include any debt of that kind in their proposed statement of the assets and liabilities of the estate.[164][162] Primary reasons [290] ‑ [294].[163] Primary reasons [295].[164] Primary reasons [295]. Those unchallenged findings sustained, indeed compelled, her Honour's ultimate conclusion rejecting Terry's allegation that Ross and Ray should be passed over because they failed to disclose the Tracenia Nominees loans as assets of the estate. For these reasons, ground 6 fails. Ground 7 contends that the judge erred in finding that: (1) Ross and Ray did not have a conflict of interest in relation to 26 Janis Street; and (2) their conduct, in not pursuing a potential claim of the estate in relation to 26 Janis Street (despite there being sufficient evidence of that potential claim), did not warrant their being passed over as executors. As will be seen, this ground is divorced from the issues at trial, and it asserts that the judge made findings that her Honour did not make. It must be rejected on those bases. As we have explained, the judge distilled Terry's numerous pleaded allegations as to why Ross should be passed over into 12 allegations.[165] Nothing in Terry's grounds of appeal or submissions provide any reason to doubt that distillation. [165] Primary reasons [68]. The judge dealt with the allegations in turn. After considering the relevant evidence, the judge found that Terry's allegation that Ross was unsuitable, having regard to his age and health and because he lacks the education and experience to carry out the role of executor and trustee, was not supported by that evidence.[166] [166] Primary reasons [259] ‑ [262].