Plunkett v Bull [1915] HCA 14

Plunkett v Bull [1915] HCA 14

The High Court held that even if the excluded oral statement by the deceased had been wrongly rejected, its weight was so slight it could not affect the outcome. The trial judge's findings of credibility were not to be disturbed and the respondent had established on the evidence both the initial indebtedness and that part payment took the case out of the Statute of Limitations. The appeal therefore failed.

Parties
Appellant; Defendant; Executor of Joseph Plunkett, Deceased: Robert Plunkett; Respondent; Plaintiff: Margaret Jane Bull
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 March 1915
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From Supreme Court of Victoria
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Declarations Against Interest, Claim Against Estate of Deceased Person, Onus of Proof, Statute of Limitations
Evidence Estates and Probate Admissibility of Declarations Against Interest Claim Against Estate of Deceased Person Onus of Proof Statute of Limitations

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Plunkett

Appellant; Defendant; Executor of Joseph Plunkett, Deceased

Margaret Jane Bull

Respondent; Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal From Supreme Court of Victoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an oral statement by the testator was admissible as a declaration against interest
  2. 2 On whom is the onus of proof in a claim against the estate of a deceased person to recover money alleged to have been lent
  3. 3 Whether the evidence established the creation of indebtedness and took the case out of the Statute of Limitations

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that even if the excluded oral statement by the deceased had been wrongly rejected, its weight was so slight it could not affect the outcome. The trial judge's findings of credibility were not to be disturbed and the respondent had established on the evidence both the initial indebtedness and that part payment took the case out of the Statute of Limitations. The appeal therefore failed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.