Gonzales v Claridades

(2003) 58 NSWLR 211; [2003] NSWCA 227

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Succession
2. › Wills
3. › Forfeiture rule
4. › Murder of testator by beneficiary
5. › Whether beneficiary entitled to access estate funds to defend criminal proceedings
6. › Whether forfeiture rule admits exception for legal defence costs
7. › Forfeiture Act 1995 (NSW)
1. Succession
2. › Administration of estates
3. › Incomplete administration
4. › Rights of beneficiary during administration
5. › Whether beneficiary has present right to estate property before completion of administration
1. Equity
2. › Trusts
3. › Administration proceedings
4. › Scope of court's power under Pt 68 Supreme Court Rules
5. › Whether court may order executor to pay funds to beneficiary outside scope of administration suit
6. › Supreme Court Rules, Pt 68 r 2
1. Equity
2. › Trusts
3. › Inherent jurisdiction
4. › Emergency jurisdiction
5. › In re New principle
6. › Whether court may sanction departure from trust terms for beneficiary's personal benefit
7. › Whether application involves administrative act beneficial to estate

Quick Take

A beneficiary charged with murdering the testator has no right to access estate funds for legal defence during incomplete administration. The forfeiture rule as to murder is strict and unbending and is not qualified by any exceptional or discretionary principle permitting advancement of legal expenses. The In re New emergency jurisdiction is confined to administrative acts beneficial to the estate and does not extend to directing payments for a beneficiary's personal benefit. Part 68 of the Supreme Court Rules does not confer jurisdiction to direct departures from proper estate administration.