McNaghten v Paterson [1907] UKPCHCA 2

McNaghten v Paterson [1907] UKPCHCA 2

The restraint on anticipation has no bearing on the notice provision in clause 4 of the separation deed. Notice to the trustee was directory, not imperative; the wife could waive it. Even if notice was imperative, the wife, having waived notice and induced the husband to alter his position, cannot later claim payment, as this would be contrary to equity.

Parties
Appellant: McNaghten; Respondent: Paterson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 July 1907
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Decision
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Separation Deed, Restraint on Anticipation, Waiver of Notice, Trustee Responsibilities
Family Law Trusts and Equity Separation Deed Restraint on Anticipation Waiver of Notice Trustee Responsibilities

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

McNaghten

Appellant

Paterson

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is restraint on anticipation validly attached to an annuity payable under a separation deed to a married woman for separate use?
  2. 2 Can the wife waive the notice provision under clause 4 of the separation deed?
  3. 3 Is the provision for notice to the trustee imperative or directory?

Ratio Decidendi

The restraint on anticipation has no bearing on the notice provision in clause 4 of the separation deed. Notice to the trustee was directory, not imperative; the wife could waive it. Even if notice was imperative, the wife, having waived notice and induced the husband to alter his position, cannot later claim payment, as this would be contrary to equity.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • appeal dismissed
  • consequences to follow as in pauper cases