Vaughan v Duncan Vogt v Duncan [2005] NSWSC 670

Vaughan v Duncan Vogt v Duncan [2005] NSWSC 670

There was no prescribed transaction under s 23 of the Family Provision Act 1982, as the transfer of shares and subsequent transaction were for full valuable consideration, and the deceased did all that was necessary to give effect to the transfer such that a constructive trust in favour of Colin Vaughan arose. The subsequent company resolution converted the deceased's remaining shares into valueless preference shares. As a result, there was no actual or notional estate from which family provision could be made for either plaintiff, and their claims were dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Family Provision and Equity / Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
All plaintiffs’ and executor’s claims dismissed
Legal Topics
['family Provision Applications' 'company Shares as Estate Assets' 'notional Estate Under Family Provision Act' 'constructive Trusts' 'specific Performance' 'equitable Assignment']
['equity' 'wills and Estates' 'family Provision'] ['family Provision Applications' 'company Shares as Estate Assets' 'notional Estate Under Family Provision Act' 'constructive Trusts' 'specific Performance' 'equitable Assignment']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Family Provision and Equity / Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the transfer of shares in G R Vaughan (Holdings) Pty Ltd to Colin Vaughan was perfected and effective' 'Whether full valuable consideration was given for the transaction' 'Whether remaining shares held by the estate became valueless preference shares on death' 'Whether the estate (or notional estate) had assets for provision under the Family Provision Act 1982' 'Whether applicants are entitled to provision from the estate']

Ratio Decidendi

There was no prescribed transaction under s 23 of the Family Provision Act 1982, as the transfer of shares and subsequent transaction were for full valuable consideration, and the deceased did all that was necessary to give effect to the transfer such that a constructive trust in favour of Colin Vaughan arose. The subsequent company resolution converted the deceased's remaining shares into valueless preference shares. As a result, there was no actual or notional estate from which family provision could be made for either plaintiff, and their claims were dismissed.

Court Disposition

All plaintiffs’ and executor’s claims dismissed

Orders

  • ["Each plaintiff's summons dismissed" 'Cross-claim on behalf of executor dismissed']