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.
|Country:||Central African Republic|
|Published (Last):||2 August 2010|
|PDF File Size:||9.91 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||5.37 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Kennon v Spry; Spry v Kennon  HCA 56 | Family Law Express Decisions
Counsel for the wife attempted to distinguish them, but not convincingly. What was the view of the majority of the Full Court of the Family Court on these issues? The Report of the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act, which predated the amendment, discussed the f for powers to be given to the Court with respect to family trust or company arrangements.
High Court handed down its decision dismissing the appeals.
That of course will not prevent the husband reaching some arrangement with the children about this given that I have still notionally added back these assets to the net asset pool of the parties.
Subsequently she applied to dissolve the marriage.
The nuptial element can readily be spr by the contribution made by the parties to the marriage to the Trust and the holding of that property for their benefit. Nor did the classes which were to take in default of appointment in the event of the Trust being terminated under cl 5 or on the date of distribution under cl 7. Mr Jackson cited these statements.
Kennon v Spry; Spry v Kennon  HCA 56
That it may result in property becoming vested in him is immaterial; the general nature of the power does not make it property. Dr Spry and Mrs Spry had four daughters from the marriage. But a right to require trustees to consider whether they will pay you something does not enable you to claim anything.
The question was whether a sum of money which his mother applied to him pursuant to her power under the marriage settlement fell within the voluntary settlement.
By this means it was sought to deny the necessary nuptial element of the Trust. It is supported by his legal title to the assets, the origins of their greater part as property acquired during the marriage, the absence of any equitable interest in them in any other party, the absence of any obligation on his part to apply all or any of the assets to any beneficiary and the contingent character of the interests of those who might be entitled to take upon a default distribution at the distribution date.
If the Trust were terminated before the date of distribution pursuant to cl 5, she had no entitlement: Can you outline the procedural history from there? Hearing over 5 days before Strickland J. The notices of appeal raised the same issues.
The meaning of words in statutes, and the application of general equitable conceptions in relation to those words, must depend on the nature and context of the particular statute.
In particular it is, of course, necessary to have regard to the subject matter, scope and purpose of the relevant statute. It included provisions to the following effect:. This identified the husband as settlor and as the present trustee. It was submitted for the husband that it was not intended that the Court should make orders that would operate to the detriment of third parties.
But, although alluded to once later, this was no more than a courteous acknowledgment of, or a forensically tactful gesture to, the idea advanced by members of the Court.
Kennin their concluding statement, Justice Gummow and Hayne Para In particular it is said that the other parties may have conducted kennnon case on a different basis, or called other or additional evidence. In reaching this conclusion, she said one must look to the individual words of the section in light of their context and purpose.
CaseWatch: Kennon v Spry and Its Implications for Third Parties in Family Law Proceedings
Clause spru was invalid to the extent it attempted to vary the power of variation. How wide and powerful is this provision? Vehicles such as these had been in common use for some time prior to Because of the divorce, she could no longer be a beneficiary. But can the Trust be said kennoh be ante-nuptial? 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. The assets would have been unarguably property of the marriage absent subjection to the F.
That power was not constrained by fiduciary duties. The essential requirement of the section is that there be a sufficient association between the property the subject of a settlement and the marriage the subject of proceedings.
The husband argued that in accordance with the decision in Ascot Investments v Harper the Court cannot ignore the legitimate interests of 3rd parties nor the conditions that limit the rights of a party who owns the property.