Hassell v Perpetual Executors Trustees and Agency Co (WA) Ltd and Ball [1952] HCA 66

Hassell v Perpetual Executors Trustees and Agency Co (WA) Ltd and Ball [1952] HCA 66

Proceeds of sale of wool shorn after the death of the testator were income of the estate, and by the terms of the will and specific powers given to trustees, the widow as life tenant was entitled to the whole of the net proceeds, not subject to apportionment under Howe v. Lord Dartmouth. Annuitants' payments should be paid primarily from income of land charged, not from corpus, unless personal liability for annuities existed, in which case apportionment would apply.

Parties
Appellant (life Tenant, Widow): Albra Marjory Hassell; Respondent (executor, Trustee): Perpetual Executors Trustees & Agency Co. (W.A.) Ltd.; Respondent (representative Defendant): C.H. Smith (with J. Hale Q.C.); Annuitant, Beneficiary: Phyllis Mildred Hassell
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 December 1952
Procedural Posture
Appeal (originating Summons for Administration of Estate) / High Court Appeal From Supreme Court of Western Australia
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; Supreme Court decision reversed in relation to proceeds of wool as income, affirmed in part regarding annuity payments.
Legal Topics
Apportionment of Capital and Income, Life Tenant and Remainderman, Settlement of Estate, Outgoings and Annuities, Rule in Howe V. Lord Dartmouth, Rule in Allhusen V. Whittell
Trusts and Estates Property Law Apportionment of Capital and Income Life Tenant and Remainderman Settlement of Estate Outgoings and Annuities Rule in Howe V. Lord Dartmouth Rule in Allhusen V. Whittell

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Albra Marjory Hassell

Appellant (life Tenant, Widow)

Perpetual Executors Trustees & Agency Co. (W.A.) Ltd.

Respondent (executor, Trustee)

C.H. Smith (with J. Hale Q.C.)

Respondent (representative Defendant)

Phyllis Mildred Hassell

Annuitant, Beneficiary

Procedural Posture

Appeal (originating Summons for Administration of Estate) / High Court Appeal From Supreme Court of Western Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proceeds of sale of wool shorn after death are income or capital under the will
  2. 2 Application or exclusion of the rule in Howe v. Lord Dartmouth
  3. 3 Incidence of annuities charged on land between life tenant and remainderman

Ratio Decidendi

Proceeds of sale of wool shorn after the death of the testator were income of the estate, and by the terms of the will and specific powers given to trustees, the widow as life tenant was entitled to the whole of the net proceeds, not subject to apportionment under Howe v. Lord Dartmouth. Annuitants' payments should be paid primarily from income of land charged, not from corpus, unless personal liability for annuities existed, in which case apportionment would apply.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; Supreme Court decision reversed in relation to proceeds of wool as income, affirmed in part regarding annuity payments.

Orders

  • Sum of £20,096 19s. 8d. from sale of wool shorn after death to be treated as income, payable to widow as life tenant, subject to proper deductions.
  • Answers to Supreme Court questions varied accordingly.