RSPCA (NSW) v Benevolent Society (NSW) [1960] HCA 4

High Court of Australia Dixon C.J. Kitto, Taylor, Menzies and Windeyer JJ. RSPCA (NSW) v Benevolent Society (NSW) [1960] HCA 4

ORDER Appeal in each case dismissed. Decretal order of the Supreme Court varied by inserting an order that Guy Fisher, Lady Hilda Madeline Britton-Jones and Matilda Gertrude Mabel Warden be appointed to defend the application as representing the estate of the deceased. The costs of the abovenamed Guy Fisher, Matilda Gertrude Mabel Warden, Lady Hilda Madeline Britton-Jones, and of the trustee, viz. Perpetual Trustee Company (Limited) of and incidental to the abovementioned appeals No. 79 and No. 80 of 1958, except in so far as such costs are exclusively referable to the said appeal No. 80, are to be paid by the appellant The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and such costs of the said Guy Fisher, Matilda Gertrude Mabel Warden and Lady Hilda Madeline Britton-Jones and of the said trustee as are exclusively referable to the said appeal No. 80 to be paid by the appellant the Benevolent Society of New South Wales. The costs of the trustee, viz. Perpetual Trustee Company (Limited) of and incidental to the said appeals No. 79 and No. 80 to be taxed as between solicitor and client and to be retained out of the fund held under the deed of settlement dated 30th September 1932 except in so far as such costs are recovered by the said trustee under the foregoing order. No order as to the costs of the Attorney-General of the said appeals.

Cur. adv. vult.

The following written judgments were delivered:—

Feb. 22, 1960 Dixon C.J.

These are two appeals, heard together, from a decretal order of Hardie J. made upon an originating summons. The decretal order declared certain trusts invalid. In the first appeal the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals of New South Wales claims that the trusts are not wholly invalid and that that Society is entitled to the enjoyment of the trust property. In the second appeal the Benevolent Society of New South Wales claims that the trusts are not invalid but that in the events that have happened the Benevolent Society has become entitled to the trust property.