Daily Banking: Tuesday, 4 August 2015 View in browser
For optimised viewing please add "benchmark@benchmarkinc.com.au" to your safe senders list.
AR Conolly Company Lawyers.
A daily Bulletin listing our choice of Decisions of Superior Courts of Australia.

Daily Banking

Executive Summary (One Minute Read)
Stewart v Moden (VSC) - wills and estates - misappropriated money - deceased’s mental capacity - defendant’s share of deceased’s estate to be retained by plaintiff for benefit of residuary beneficiaries
Ferrari Estate Holdings Pty Ltd v Sovereign Resort Developments Pty Ltd (No 2) (QSC) - dismissal - claim against second and third defendants dismissed for want of prosecution
Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read)
Stewart v Moden [2015] VSC 369
Supreme Court of Victoria
McMillan J
Wills and estates - plaintiff beneficiary and executor of deceased’s estate sought declarations as to defendant’s entitlements under deceased’s Will - plaintiff sought that defendant’s entitlement be offset from money misappropriated by defendant during deceased’s lifetime - deceased’s mental capacity - rule in Cherry v Boultbee [1839] EngR 1099 - defendant’s inability to repay estate - held: even if deceased knew how her assets were being spent by defendant it was unlikely his spending was for deceased’s benefit - plaintiff entitled to declaration sought that defendant’s share of estate be retained by plaintiff, as executor for benefit of residuary beneficiaries other than defendant.
Stewart
Ferrari Estate Holdings Pty Ltd v Sovereign Resort Developments Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] QSC 220
Supreme Court of Queensland
Henry J
Dismissal - want of prosecution - plaintiff alleged its land and building flooded and damaged as result of development works undertaken by second and third defendants at hotel for first defendant owner of hotel - Court dismissed plaintiff’s claim against first defendant for want of prosecution - second and third defendants sought dismissal of claim against them for want of prosecution - held: plaintiff engaged in prolonged delays - plaintiff failed to comply with implied undertaking to proceed in expeditious way - explanation for delay inadequate -case did not have good prospects of success and was far short of being ready to be listed for trial - plaintiff had long considered defendants should wait for case to be progressed when it suited plaintiff’s director to progress it - claim against second and third defendants dismissed for want of prosecution.
Ferrari