Holden v Black [1905] HCA 40

Holden v Black [1905] HCA 40

Sureties to an administration bond are entitled, after the time for the administrator to secure the shares of infant next of kin has passed and technical default occurred, to equitable relief compelling the administrator to set aside and invest those shares, even in absence of actual loss. The express covenant does not abrogate this right; nor does acceptance of nominal damages for past breaches. However, the costs of such a suit, not being a general administration action, should not be paid out of the estate but by the parties themselves, with the administrator liable for infants' costs.

Parties
Plaintiff: James Holden; Plaintiff: David Webster; Defendant: Kate Black; Defendant: Infant children of David Black
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 October 1905
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria to the High Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs.
Legal Topics
Administration Bond, Rights and Liabilities of Sureties, Administration of Intestate Estates, Trustee Duties, Costs in Equity
Equity Trusts and Estates Administration Bond Rights and Liabilities of Sureties Administration of Intestate Estates Trustee Duties Costs in Equity

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Holden

Plaintiff

David Webster

Plaintiff

Kate Black

Defendant

Infant children of David Black

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria to the High Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sureties to an administration bond have the right to compel an administrator to perform duties for the benefit of infant beneficiaries where there is technical default but no actual loss;
  2. 2 Whether the acceptance of nominal damages discharges the right of the sureties to specific relief;
  3. 3 Entitlement to legal costs and their source of payment in suits brought by sureties.

Ratio Decidendi

Sureties to an administration bond are entitled, after the time for the administrator to secure the shares of infant next of kin has passed and technical default occurred, to equitable relief compelling the administrator to set aside and invest those shares, even in absence of actual loss. The express covenant does not abrogate this right; nor does acceptance of nominal damages for past breaches. However, the costs of such a suit, not being a general administration action, should not be paid out of the estate but by the parties themselves, with the administrator liable for infants' costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs.

Orders

  • Judgment of Beckett J. restored with variations as to costs: administrator ordered to pay the infants' costs of the action and appeal; plaintiffs and defendant kate black to bear their own costs otherwise; sum of £269 excepted from order as to costs; judgment of Full Court reversed.