Image TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage Tile
Image size: 6144x7680 Scale: 45% - PanoJS3
Page overview thumbnailicon minus sign

Article text

Forfeiture of Income
MR. COLIN SMITH'S APpjEAL^
UNSUCCESSFUL
The Full Court COhief Justice Sir
F rederick. Jordan, Mr Justice HalEe
Rogers, and Mr J"stice Stephen), on
Friday, gave judgment on the appeal
of Mr CQlin Smith against a decision
by Mr Justice Nicholas in a suit in
situated fcv the Perpetual Trustee Co,
ty which his Honor declared tliat the
share, oi inc ome to which Mr Smith
became entitled under the trusts of
his father's will had lapsed. The share
of income amounted to over £7,000 a
year.
The will contained a clausa provid
ing that if any beneficiary should
"assign or charge his or her respect
ive benefits under this my will or any
part thereof or if any. other event
shall happen .... whereby although
the same were payable to him or her
such benefits would be by his or her
act or default or by operation of lav/
co disposed of as to prevent his or her
personal enjoyment thereof then and
in any such cases such legacy annuity
share or benefit shall lapse or cease
qs the case may * be as if he or she
were dead.''
The will then directed that any
share or benefit thus lapsing should be
held in discretionary trusts for the
maintenance of the beneficiary and
the beneficiaries in remainder, who in
respect of the gift to Mr Colin Smith
were his children.
Mr Smith In 1934 was in arrears
with payments of income and other
taxes to the extent of £34,000. On
February 8, 1935, an agreement was
executed under which Mr Smith, who
had meanwhile returned to Australia
from abroad, entered Into certain
undertakings directed to liquidation of
this indebtedness. The deed recited
that in consideration of the Commis
sioner of Taxation forbearing to take
proceedings against him for recovery
of the debt and permitting him to
leave Australia, Mr Smith undertook
to arrange for payment to the Com
missioner of half his income as it was
paid by the trustee to his attorney,
such payment not to be less than
£1,OCO every threo months. He alsc
undertook to irrevocably instruct the
trustee of the will to pay the whole of
his income to his attorney as it be
came payable and not to.Revoke the
^Commissioner,
or appoint any other attorney without
euch consent.
The question before Mr Justice
Nicholas was as to the legal effect of
what took place between the Commis
sioner and Mr Smith's attorney and
the Commissioner, Mr Smith, and the
trustee. Ills Honor held that the
agreement of February 9, 1935, worked
a forfeiture in accordance with the
provisions o<! the will and declared ac
cordingly. It was against this that
Mr Smith appealed.
It was contended on behalf of the
appellant thr,t the undertaking of
iFebruary 8 was a mere piece of mach
inery, intended by the parties to im
plement an independently transacted
arrangement bv which the appellant
was to appoint an attorney to act dur
ing his absence from Australia, but to
act exclusively as the appellant's agent
and so as to confer upon the Comnus
sioner no rights with respect to the
income receivable by the appellant
from his father 's estate. For the re
spondent remainder men it was sub
mitted that the undertaking constit
uted an agreement by the appellant
and supolieu evidence of an agreement
bv the Commissioner, in terms of the
document, vesting in the Commissioner
an equitable right in rem in one-half
of the income receivable by the ap
pellant from the estate.
The Full Court held that the order
appealed from was correct and dis
missed the appeal. In the course of
judgment, the Chief Justice said that
he was unable to see that the docu
ment of February 8 was susceptible of
any' othe- construction than that the
appellant definitely agreed, for valu
able consideration, that half his in
come should be paid to the Commis
sioner. It seemed to have been thought
or hoped bv the appellant and the
Commissioner that the device of pro
viding that, in the first instance, the
attorney should receive the whole in
come .on the appellant's behalf and of
the attorney then paying over half of
what he received, would prevent the
transaction from operating as a charge
upon the appellant's interest. But
the contract was clearly a contract to
arrange tor payment to the Commis
sioner of half the Income received by
the appellant from his father's estate,
aod to do so through the .mediumsof
his attorney. He (his Honor), could
come to r.o other conclusion than that
the agreement constituted an equitable
assignment or charge by the appellant
of fcis interest under the will . That
being so, no desire on the part of the
parties to have the benefits of an as
signment without incurring any of
tha inconveniences attendant on crea
tion of an assignment in such a cae.>
as the present, could prevent ;the
transaction from being what in law
it was and from producing its .. iricW
dental, and most' unwished-for, .^by
product. .' : , ,
Costs of all parties as between sol
icitor and client out of the incomn
over which the trustee has discretion
ary powers.
Mr Mason, K.C., and Mr P. Myers
(instructed by Messrs Laurence and
Laurcnce) appeared for the appellant:
Mr Dudley Williams, K.O., and Mr V.
G. Wcsche (instructed by Messrs
Fisher and Macansh) for the benefic
iaries in remainder; and Mr Officer
(instructed by Messrs Stephen, Jaques,
and Stephen) for the Perpetual
Trustee Co. ?; <