Clayton v Clayton [2023] NSWSC 399

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Clayton v Clayton [2023] NSWSC 399 Hearing dates: 27 – 29 March 2023 Date of orders: 20 April 2023 Decision date: 20 April 2023 Jurisdiction: Equity Before: Meek J Decision: Plaintiff's claim for family provision dismissed. Defendant's cross-claim seeking declaration that Murwillumbah property held on trust for the Defendant dismissed. Catchwords: SUCCESSION — Family provision — Deceased directed that a substantial part of her estate being a property at Murwillumbah and the overwhelming majority of proceeds of a life insurance policy be left to her daughter and a very modest amount of proceeds to her only other child, a son — Claim by the son for further provision — Son has some mental health issues but nonetheless has generally lived independently from the deceased and had gainful employment over the past 20 years — Contested issues regarding son's relationship status, health and capacity for work — Daughter reliant on deceased for accommodation — Daughter claimed the Murwillumbah property held on trust but in any event made a substantial contribution to the deceased's property and welfare — Defendant provided care for deceased particularly in later years — Strong competing claim of defendant who lived with deceased for most of her life to retain provision to her of residential property gifted under Will ESTOPPEL — Proprietary estoppel — Estoppel by encouragement — Claim by defendant that deceased's real property held on a constructive trust TRUSTS — Constructive trusts — Alternative trust claim by defendant arising from contributions to property — Important differences between common intention constructive trust and joint endeavour constructive trust — Requirements for each of a common intention constructive trust and a joint endeavour constructive trust discussed PLEADING — Constructive trusts — Important to plead trust claim clearly as critical differences between a common intention constructive trust and a joint endeavour constructive trust EVIDENCE — Competence — A lack of response by a witness per se or a nonresponsive answer to a question does not necessarily demonstrate a lack of understanding of the question nor inability to give up a comprehensible answer — The mere fact that a witness has a mental health condition does not necessarily preclude a finding of competency PRACTICE — Consideration of legal capacity to conduct proceedings EVIDENCE — Cross-examination — Discussion of rule in Browne v Dunn and requirements of procedural fairness — The existence of the statutory duty of legal representatives not to put their client in breach of the parties' obligation to assist the Court to further the overriding purpose to facilitate the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in the proceedings according to s 56(1)-(4) Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) (CPA) might in some cases qualify principle in Browne v Dunn, as might the power of the Court to regulate cross-examination in proceedings according to s 62(1), (2), (3)(a), 4(a) and (5) CPA, subject to not detracting from the principle that each party is entitled to a fair hearing: s 62(4) CPA EVIDENCE — Family provision — Cross-examination in family provision cases — Discussion of forensic decisions and obligations SUCCESSION — Family provision — Notional estate provisions — Consideration of principles regarding designation of property in respect of life insurance proceeds and property said to be subject to a trust SUCCESSION — Family provision — Consideration of principles regarding adequacy of provision and proper provision Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) Succession Act 2006 (NSW) Supreme Court Rules (Amendment No. 337) 1999 (NSW) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) Cases Cited: Allied Pastoral Holdings Pty Ltd v FCT [1983] 1 NSWLR 1 Armitage v Fraser [2020] NSWSC 979 Awad v Awad (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 25 Barns v Barns (2003) 214 CLR 169; [2003] HCA 9 Bassett v Cameron [2021] NSWSC 207 Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137; [1987] HCA 59 Bijkerk Investments Pty Ltd v Bikic [2020] NSWSC 1336 Birmingham v Renfrew (1937) 57 CLR 661; [1937] HCA 52 Blackett v Darcy [2005] NSWSC 65 Bowering v Bowering [2014] NSWSC 1107 Browne v Dunn (1894) 6 R 67 Bryson v Bryant (1992) 29 NSWLR 188 Cetojevic v Cetojevic [2006] NSWSC 431 Cetojevic v Cetojevic [2007] NSWCA 33 Charnock v Handley [2011] NSWSC 1408 Chief Commissioner of Stamp Duties (NSW) v ISPT Pty Ltd (1998) 45 NSWLR 639 Chisak v Presot [2022] NSWCA 100 Commercial Union Assurance Co of Australia Limited v Ferrcom Pty Ltd (1991) 22 NSWLR 389 Cooper v Atkin [2020] NSWSC 828 Craig v Silverbrook [2013] NSWSC 1687 Curtin v Curtin [2005] NSWSC 35 De Blac v Lo [2014] NSWSC 142 Delaforce v Simpson-Cook (2010) 78 NSWLR 483; [2010] NSWCA 84 Evans v Levy [2011] NSWCA 125 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22 Galati v Deans [2021] NSWSC 1094 Galati v Deans [2023] NSWCA 13 Georgopoulos v Tsiokanis [2022] NSWSC 563 Goodrich Aerospace Pty Ltd v Arsic (2006) 66 NSWLR 186; [2006] NSWCA 187 Gooley v Gooley [2021] NSWSC 56 Henderson v Miles (No 2) [2005] NSWSC 867; (2005) 12 BPR 23,579 Horn v GA & RG Horn Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 1519 Hull v Thompson [2001] NSWCA 359 In the matter of Hoju Jobs Pty Ltd [2021] NSWSC 302 Jacobsen v Jacobsen [2017] NSWSC 1590 Jelley v Iliffe [1981] 2 All ER 29 Jemmark Pty Ltd v 10 Egan Street Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 865 Jodell v Woods [2017] NSWSC 143 Kastrounis v Foundouradakis [2012] NSWSC 264 Koprivnjak v Koprivnjak [2023] NSWCA 2 Lloyd-Williams v Mayfield (2005) 63 NSWLR 1; [2005] NSWCA 189 Lu v Yu [2019] VSC 499 Mallitt v Gow [2022] NSWSC 1012 McDonald v Dunscombe [2018] VSC 283 Meissner v Lindsay [2016] NSWSC 790 Mobile Innovations Limited v Vodafone Pacific Limited [2003] NSWSC 309 Muschinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583; [1985] HCA 79 Nicholls v Hall [2006] NSWSC 1377 Page v Page [2017] NSWCA 141 Phillips v James (2014) 85 NSWLR 619; [2014] NSWCA 4 Poletti v Jones [2015] NSWCA 107; (2015) 13 ASTLR 113 Prouten v Chapman [2021] NSWCA 207 Q (a pseudonym) v E Co (a pseudonym) [2020] NSWCA 220 R v Brooks (1998) 44 NSWLR 121 R v Medich (No 40) [2018] NSWSC 374 RA v R [2007] NSWCCA 251; (2007) 175 A Crim R 221 Robertson v McCann [2023] NSWSC 159 Sammut v Kleemann [2012] NSWSC 1030 Sgro v Thompson [2017] NSWCA 326 Shepherd v Doolan [2005] NSWSC 42 Shymko v Lach [2022] NSWSC 1096 Sidhu v Van Dyke (2014) 251 CLR 505; [2014] HCA 19 Singer v Berghouse (1994) 181 CLR 201; [1994] HCA 40 Starr v Miller; Starr v Miller [2021] NSWSC 426 Stone v Stone [2019] NSWSC 233 Strang v Steiner [2019] NSWCA 143 Sun v Chapman [2022] NSWCA 132 Taupau v HVAC Constructions (Queensland) Pty Limited & Ors [2012] NSWCA 293 Taylor v Farugia [2009] NSWSC 801 The Recyclers (NSW) Pty Ltd v Ayoub [2016] NSWSC 144 Wardy v Salier [2014] NSWSC 473 West v Mead [2003] NSWSC 161; (2003) 13 BPR 24,431 Texts Cited: Bible - New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised Halsbury's Laws of Australia (online) Macquarie Dictionary, online ed Peter Young, Clyde Croft and Megan Smith, On Equity (2009, Thomson Reuters) Practice Note No. SC EQ 7 Ying Khai Liew, 'Constructive Trusts and Discretion in Australia: Taking Stock' (2021) 44(3) Melbourne University Law Review 963 Ying Khai Liew, 'The 'joint endeavour constructive trust' doctrine in Australia: Deconstructing unconscionability' (2021) 42(1) Adelaide Law Review 73 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Ryan James Clayton (Plaintiff) Rebecca Jane Clayton (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: C Simpson (Plaintiff) J Brown and C Coventry (Defendant)