Linderstam v Barnett [1915] HCA 5

Linderstam v Barnett [1915] HCA 5

The plaintiff was competent and deliberate in entering the deed of settlement. The absence of independent advice would not have affected the outcome, and the settlement reflected her true intention to make irrevocable provision for her children. Therefore, the deed should not be cancelled.

Parties
Plaintiff: Elsie Linderstam (formerly Elsie Johnston); Defendant Trustee: Nathaniel Benjamin Barnett; Defendant Trustee: William Alfred Cane; Defendant Beneficiary: Mary Gwendolen Johnston; Defendant Beneficiary: Cyril Dalgleish Johnston; Defendant Beneficiary: Bruce Carlysle Johnston
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 February 1915
Procedural Posture
Action / First Instance
Outcome
Plaintiff's case fails; the deed stands.
Legal Topics
Deeds, Revocation, Settlements, Independent Advice, Improvident Transaction
Equity Deeds Revocation Settlements Independent Advice Improvident Transaction

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elsie Linderstam (formerly Elsie Johnston)

Plaintiff

Nathaniel Benjamin Barnett

Defendant Trustee

William Alfred Cane

Defendant Trustee

Mary Gwendolen Johnston

Defendant Beneficiary

Cyril Dalgleish Johnston

Defendant Beneficiary

Bruce Carlysle Johnston

Defendant Beneficiary

Procedural Posture

Action / First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether absence of independent advice vitiates a deed of settlement by a woman
  2. 2 Whether the deed was hasty or improvident or failed to reflect true intentions
  3. 3 Whether plaintiff is entitled to cancellation of the deed and payment of trust money

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was competent and deliberate in entering the deed of settlement. The absence of independent advice would not have affected the outcome, and the settlement reflected her true intention to make irrevocable provision for her children. Therefore, the deed should not be cancelled.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's case fails; the deed stands.

Orders

  • Deed to stand; claim for cancellation refused.
  • Plaintiff to pay all defendants' costs.