10 Aug 2005
RENNIE V HAMILTON, CA CA157/04
- Citation
- openlaw-703f7744_fa40_4baa_8a94_5a4f97da6320.pdf
- Court
- Court of Appeal
The Court affirmed the High Court: the deceased's promise was properly regarded as relating to the business operations rather than the freehold; the appellant's advice and managerial services and access to takings did not amount to direct or indirect contributions sufficient to establish an institutional or implied trust under Lankow v Rose; accordingly no trust arose, but an award of $70,000 under the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act 1949 was reasonable; appeal dismissed and no costs ordered.