Fay Noble Dunn by her Tutor Monica Ross-Maranik v David Brenton Dunn [2022] NSWSC 1339

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Fay Noble Dunn by her Tutor Monica Ross-Maranik v David Brenton Dunn [2022] NSWSC 1339 Hearing dates: 21 September 2022 Date of orders: 30 September 2022 Decision date: 30 September 2022 Jurisdiction: Equity Before: Kunc J Decision: Settlement approved Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Settlement or discontinuance — Person under a legal disability Court approval — Substantial fund to be paid to private trustees — Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 77(3) Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) Succession Act 2006 (NSW) NSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009 (NSW) Cases Cited: AC v OC (a minor) [2014] NSWSC 53, Rappard v Williams [2013] NSWSC 1279 Re X [2016] NSWSC 275 Smith bht Magnusson v NRMA Insurance Australia Ltd [2008] NSWDC 261 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Fay Noble Dunn (Plaintiff)

David Brenton Dunn (First Defendant) Representation: Counsel:

PJ Muscat (Plaintiff) C Birtles (Defendant)

Solicitors:

Uther Webster & Evans (Plaintiff) Bartier Perry Lawyers (Defendant) File Number(s): 2021/252592 Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Summary 1. The plaintiff in these proceedings is a person under legal incapacity and is represented by her tutor. This judgment deals with an application brought in the Duty List for the approval of a settlement of the proceedings under s 76 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) (the Act) and for the payment of monies pursuant to that settlement under s 77 of the Act. There was no opposition to the approval of the settlement, which was plainly in the plaintiff's best interests. In the ordinary course it might be approved with short, if any, reasons. However, one central aspect of the settlement – the payment of the substantial settlement into a private trust for the benefit of the plaintiff – has required particular attention. 2. The plaintiff and her tutor were represented by Ms PJ Muscat of Counsel. Mr C Birtles of Counsel appeared for the first defendant and the proposed second defendant. The Court particularly acknowledges its indebtedness to Ms Muscat's detailed written opinion that was tendered on the application together with her careful oral exposition of the issues.