Hill v Hill [2013] NSWSC 524

Hill v Hill [2013] NSWSC 524

Because the defendant killed the deceased, had been found not guilty of murder by reason of mental illness, and justice required the forfeiture rule to be applied after considering the conduct of the defendant, the conduct of the deceased and the effect on the defendant and the deceased's children, the Court ordered...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Succession Proceedings Concerning Forfeiture and Administration of an Intestate Estate / Principal Judgment; Ex Tempore Determination of Amended Summons
Outcome
Orders made applying the forfeiture rule to the defendant, appointing administrators of the deceased's estate, continuing an injunction until further order, ordering the defendant to pay costs, dismissing the balance of relief without prejudice, and reserving liberty to apply.
Legal Topics
['forfeiture Where Intestate Killed Unlawfully' 'de Facto Spouse Found Not Guilty by Reason of Mental Illness' 'grant of Administration' 'intestate Succession' 'costs' 'injunction Pending Sale of Property']
['succession' 'probate and Administration' 'equity' 'forfeiture Rule'] ['forfeiture Where Intestate Killed Unlawfully' 'de Facto Spouse Found Not Guilty by Reason of Mental Illness' 'grant of Administration' 'intestate Succession' 'costs' 'injunction Pending Sale of Property']

Source-derived case record

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Succession Proceedings Concerning Forfeiture and Administration of an Intestate Estate / Principal Judgment; Ex Tempore Determination of Amended Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the forfeiture rule should apply to the defendant under s 11 of the Forfeiture Act 1995 NSW as if he had been found guilty of the murder of the deceased.' "Whether Jeffrey Charles Burrowes and Julie Anne Burrowes should be granted administration of the deceased's intestate estate under s 74 of the Probate and Administration Act 1898 NSW." "Whether the existing injunction concerning proceeds of sale of land registered in the defendant's name should continue." 'Whether the defendant should pay the costs of the proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the defendant killed the deceased, had been found not guilty of murder by reason of mental illness, and justice required the forfeiture rule to be applied after considering the conduct of the defendant, the conduct of the deceased and the effect on the defendant and the deceased's children, the Court ordered under s 11 of the Forfeiture Act 1995 NSW that the forfeiture rule apply as if the defendant had been found guilty of murder. That disentitled him from taking any interest in the deceased's estate and justified administering the intestate estate on the basis that the deceased left two children and no spouse. The Court also found it appropriate to appoint Jeffrey Charles...

Court Disposition

Orders made applying the forfeiture rule to the defendant, appointing administrators of the deceased's estate, continuing an injunction until further order, ordering the defendant to pay costs, dismissing the balance of relief without prejudice, and reserving liberty to apply.

Orders

  • ['Order that pursuant to s 11 of the Forfeiture Act 1995 the forfeiture rule shall apply with respect to the defendant as if the defendant had been found guilty of the murder of Michel Wendy Carroll.' 'Order that pursuant to s 74 of the Probate and Administration Act 1898 (NSW) Jeffrey Charles Burrowes and Julie...