This is a case note of a family law matter involving a family trusts and property. Kennon v Spry; Spry v Kennon  HCA 56 (“Spry”) is a particularly noteworthy. The case is Kennon and Spry. In it, the husband sets up a series of trusts for the benefit of the children of the marriage. It was the ability of the Family Court to. The decision of the High Court in Kennon v Spry () CLR ; ALR ; 83 ALJR ;. 40 Fam LR 1;  FLC ;  HCA 56 is one of.
|Published (Last):||10 June 2004|
|PDF File Size:||7.88 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||3.12 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Perhaps the parties did not invite them to. I respectfully agree with their Honours that prior to the Instrument the equitable right to due administration of the Trust fund could be taken into account as part of the property of Mrs Spry as a party to the marriage.
He said that only some small parcels of shares had been acquired by the Trust prior to the marriage. The proceedings were directed to obtaining orders enabling the wife to gain access, directly or indirectly, to the assets of the Trust.
Counsel then said he wanted to put the matter on two levels or in two ways. The evidence made clear that kenon applied the assets and income from them as he wished and for his own benefit. Sprry was, however, limited so as not to authorise an increase in his rights to the beneficial enjoyment of the fund.
It would follow that neither the husband nor the wife could receive any benefit from the Trust.
Kennon v Spry; Spry v Kennon  HCA 56 | Family Law Express Decisions
R v Dovey; Ex parte Ross. Kennon object does not suggest any narrow meaning should be given to the term. It is convenient first to consider this contention.
The Court overturned the various amending instruments to the Trust, effectively reversing the four trusts for the benefit of the Spry daughters. Control of the Trust was not sufficient for that purpose. It has been asserted many kennob and in many contexts. Husband further varied the trust by excluding himself and wife as capital beneficiaries.
Family Law and Family Trusts
That is a beneficiary has the right to due consideration and to due administration of the trust which whilst difficult to value is not beyond the arts of an lennon see p77 and That depends on whether, in the language of s 79 Their interests are vested, but vested only in interest, not possession. The term describes a legal title divorced from any powers or duties. That provision has been maintained in successive legislation. In the present case the Trust was used to hold property for the benefit of the parties to the marriage upon the terms of the Trust.
Kennon v Spry; Spry v Kennon  HCA 56
In view of the fact that this judgment spey from the orders proposed by the other members of the Court, it will be brief in dealing with the other difficulties. The process of construction should begin with examining the context of the provision in question.
On those facts, it was not to go too far to regard the transfer to joint ownership as a post-nuptial settlement. It must be taken as intended that the Court consider any contributions, direct or indirect, to the property the subject of a nuptial settlement. Amended notices of kenbon and applications for special leave to cross-appeal. Counsel who appeared for the wife in this Court did not appear in the courts below.
Family Law & Family Trusts – Case note for Kennon v Spry; Spry v Kennon  HCA 56
If the trustees do decide to pay you something, you do not get it by reason of having the right to have your case considered: The same is true for the members of a superannuation fund although vesting of a benefit may iennon many years in the future. The appeals should be dismissed. The trustee had an absolute discretion to apply the capital and income of the Trust fund.
The spr of such a right did not depend upon entitlement to any fixed and transmissible beneficial interest in the trust fund. Kennno, as an object of these powers the wife had a right in equity to due administration of the Sprj.
In this case the Chief Justice was not concerned about this argument and distinguished it by saying the husband as trustee owned the legal title and the wife had an equitable right to due consideration and administration.
Suttor v Gundowda Pty Ltd. The wife drew attention to the fact that so long as the husband remained trustee he, being both trustee and one of the objects of the power of appointment, would be free lawfully to distribute income and capital to himself.
The learned primary judge made extensive findings of fact and law.