Robert John West & Ors v Betty June Blackgrove

ROBERT JOHN WEST & ORS
v
BETTY JUNE BLACKGROVE & ANOR
[2013] HCASL 38
B74/2012

The first applicant and the first and second respondents are the children of Doris Jean West (deceased). The second applicant is the wife of the first applicant. The deceased died on 1 May 2009 leaving a will appointing the first applicant her sole executor. By her will, the deceased left $100,000 to each of her children and the residue of her estate to the first applicant.
In her will, the deceased referred to a property at Thornlands which the will described as having been purchased jointly with the first applicant to help the deceased in her final years. The deceased had contributed more than half of the amount spent purchasing the Thornlands property, but it was registered in the name of the second applicant.
In the Supreme Court of Queensland the respondents sought (among other things) a declaration that the second applicant held the Thornlands property on trust for the estate of the deceased and an order that the property be sold. At trial this was not disputed. The primary judge (McMurdo J) held that the estate was entitled to a share in the Thornlands property. The applicants alleged that the respondents had held up the sale of the Thornlands property and that, in consequence, both they and the estate had suffered loss.
The primary judge found that no act of the respondents had prevented sale of the Thornlands property before the time it was sold.
On appeal to the Court of Appeal (Holmes and Muir JJA, Daubney J), that Court held that the respondents had not unlawfully impeded the sale of the Thornlands property and that, in any event, no loss was shown to have been suffered by the applicants.
As the applicant does not have legal representation, the application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004.
The applicants seek special leave to appeal against the orders made by the Court of Appeal and seek to raise for the first time some arguments not agitated in the Courts below. Even if it is open to the applicants to make those new arguments, we are not persuaded that an appeal to this Court would enjoy sufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

K.M. Hayne
10 April 2013 S.M. Crennan

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Robert John West & Ors v Betty June Blackgrove & Anor involved the dispute over a property in Thornlands, which was registered in the name of the second applicant, Betty June Blackgrove, but was claimed to be jointly purchased by Doris Jean West (deceased) and the first applicant, Robert John West. The deceased's will left $100,000 to each of her children and the residue of her estate to Robert John West. The respondents, who are the children of the deceased, sought a declaration that the second applicant held the Thornlands property on trust for the estate of the deceased and an order that the property be sold. The primary judge held that the estate was entitled to a share in the Thornlands property, but the applicants alleged that the respondents had held up the sale of the Thornlands property and that, in consequence, both they and the estate had suffered loss. The Court of Appeal held that the respondents had not unlawfully impeded the sale of the Thornlands property and that, in any event, no loss was shown to have been suffered by the applicants.

The legal issues that the Court was required to decide were whether the respondents had unlawfully impeded the sale of the Thornlands property and whether the applicants had suffered any loss as a result. The Court was also required to determine whether the applicants were entitled to special leave to appeal against the orders made by the Court of Appeal and whether they could raise new arguments that were not agitated in the Courts below.

The Court held that the applicants were not entitled to special leave to appeal against the orders made by the Court of Appeal. The Court held that even if it was open to the applicants to make the new arguments, they were not persuaded that an appeal to this Court would enjoy sufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave. The Court held that the primary judge had correctly found that no act of the respondents had prevented the sale of the Thornlands property before the time it was sold and that the applicants had not shown any loss as a result of the respondents' actions. The Court held that the applicants' arguments were speculative and did not provide a sufficient basis for an appeal.

The final orders of the Court were that the application for special leave to appeal was dismissed and that the Registrar was directed to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. The Court held that the applicants were not entitled to raise new arguments that were not agitated in the Courts below and that the orders made by the Court of Appeal were upheld. The applicants were not entitled to any further relief in relation to the dispute over the Thornlands property.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established