Duncan v Cathels [1956] HCA 56
There was an absolute gift to Bisset Fenwick in the first instance; the subsequent limitations, including the proviso relating to income, did not operate in the events which occurred. Therefore, Bisset's share vests in the executors of his will per the rule in Lassence v. Tierney.
- Parties
- Appellant: Duncan; Respondents: Cathels and others; Respondent: Dunkley; Respondent: Fenwick; Respondent: R. C. Cathels
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales
- Outcome
- appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Construction of Trust Instruments, Rule in Lassence V. Tierney, Absolute Gifts, Resulting Trusts
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Duncan
Appellant
Cathels and others
Respondents
Dunkley
Respondent
Fenwick
Respondent
R. C. Cathels
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the share of Bisset Fenwick under the settlement was an absolute gift in the first instance
- 2 Whether the proviso relating to income applied in the events which occurred
- 3 Whether there was a resulting trust of the corpus of Bisset's share
Ratio Decidendi
There was an absolute gift to Bisset Fenwick in the first instance; the subsequent limitations, including the proviso relating to income, did not operate in the events which occurred. Therefore, Bisset's share vests in the executors of his will per the rule in Lassence v. Tierney.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed
Orders
- Delete declarations in decretal order.
- Insert declaration that the share or interest of Bisset Fenwick deceased is now vested in the executors of his will.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment