Hughes v Fripp [1922] HCA 26

Hughes v Fripp [1922] HCA 26

Profits earned up to the date of the testator's death were assets due to his estate and should be treated as corpus, not income for the beneficiary; only profits earned after death up to the balance date are income payable to the beneficiary.

Parties
Appellant: Mabel Hughes; Respondents: Fripp and Others; Respondent: Edward George Owen; Testator: Henry Thomas Tompsitt (deceased)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 June 1922
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of Victoria
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Partnership Dissolution, Trusts—income Vs Corpus, Beneficiaries’ Entitlement
Equity Trusts and Estates Partnership Partnership Dissolution Trusts—income Vs Corpus Beneficiaries’ Entitlement

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mabel Hughes

Appellant

Fripp and Others

Respondents

Edward George Owen

Respondent

Henry Thomas Tompsitt (deceased)

Testator

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of Victoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether profits earned by a partnership up to the date of a partner's death are income payable to a beneficiary entitled under the will or corpus of the estate
  2. 2 Whether partnership profits after the testator's death should be apportioned as income for the beneficiary

Ratio Decidendi

Profits earned up to the date of the testator's death were assets due to his estate and should be treated as corpus, not income for the beneficiary; only profits earned after death up to the balance date are income payable to the beneficiary.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs ordered against the appellant