Wigley v Crozier [1909] HCA 86

Wigley v Crozier [1909] HCA 86

The indenture of 23 November 1903 was void and inoperative as against Mrs. Crozier because the trustees were not entitled to convert or appropriate the estate at that time: the trust for conversion was discretionary and had not arisen, and neither Mrs. Richardson nor her daughters were entitled to demand immediate payment or appropriation under the will's terms. Accordingly, the purported appropriation and settlement of the entire estate for their benefit, to the exclusion of the respondent, breached the trustees' duties to all beneficiaries and was invalid. No entitlement to interest on the arrears of Mrs. Richardson's annuity arose.

Parties
Appellant, Defendant, Trustee of Will and Codicil: Thomas Francis Wigley; Appellant, Defendant, Beneficiary (annuitant): Elizabeth Richardson; Respondent, Plaintiff, Beneficiary (annuitant): Elizabeth Ann Crozier; Added Defendant, Beneficiary (daughter of Richardson): Lilian Sturt Wigley
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 October 1909
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment Following Appeal From Supreme Court of South Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. Judgment of Supreme Court of South Australia affirmed with variation (declaration of deed's invalidity).
Legal Topics
Trust for Conversion, Appropriation of Trust Assets, Power to Postpone Conversion, Annuities Under Wills, Validity of Appointment and Parties
Wills and Estates Trusts Trust for Conversion Appropriation of Trust Assets Power to Postpone Conversion Annuities Under Wills Validity of Appointment and Parties

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Francis Wigley

Appellant, Defendant, Trustee of Will and Codicil

Elizabeth Richardson

Appellant, Defendant, Beneficiary (annuitant)

Elizabeth Ann Crozier

Respondent, Plaintiff, Beneficiary (annuitant)

Lilian Sturt Wigley

Added Defendant, Beneficiary (daughter of Richardson)

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment Following Appeal From Supreme Court of South Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether trustees could validly appropriate unconverted estate for benefit of one annuitant and her children before conversion under the will's terms
  2. 2 Whether indenture of 23 November 1903 was a valid and effective appropriation or settlement under the will
  3. 3 Whether arrears of annuity bore interest

Ratio Decidendi

The indenture of 23 November 1903 was void and inoperative as against Mrs. Crozier because the trustees were not entitled to convert or appropriate the estate at that time: the trust for conversion was discretionary and had not arisen, and neither Mrs. Richardson nor her daughters were entitled to demand immediate payment or appropriation under the will's terms. Accordingly, the purported appropriation and settlement of the entire estate for their benefit, to the exclusion of the respondent, breached the trustees' duties to all beneficiaries and was invalid. No entitlement to interest on the arrears of Mrs. Richardson's annuity arose.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. Judgment of Supreme Court of South Australia affirmed with variation (declaration of deed's invalidity).

Orders

  • Declaration that the indenture of 23 November 1903 is void and inoperative as against Mrs. Crozier
  • Order for administration of estate as per will's terms, prioritizing payment of arrears of Mrs. Richardson's annuity (without interest), setting aside £8,000 for her annuity, and £425 for trustee costs; the residue to be set aside for Mrs. Crozier's annuity not exceeding £200 per annum