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):||8 August 2014|
|PDF File Size:||10.37 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||3.45 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Wife filed for property settlement.
What was the view of the majority of the Full Court of the Family Court on these issues? The process of construction should begin with examining the context of the provision in question. The Act does not deem persons to remain kennin to the marriage for all purposes relating to property interests.
In so s;ry, however, I acknowledge, consistently with the observations of the Full Court in Hauff and Evansthat it is difficult to put a value on either of these rights though a valuation might not be beyond the actuarial arts in relation to the right to due consideration. The current value of the shares should be notionally added to the pool of assets for distribution between the parties. The Deed was effective in its terms.
The wife sought leave to amend her notices of contention. In their concluding statement, Justice Gummow and Hayne Para The Trust property represents contributions of the parties and is held on terms of a settlement.
Sprg matter of costs is for this Court and is not controlled by provisions respecting costs in the Act.
It is “property dealt with by That class did not include only the wife and the children. If you mean can they be used to ensure a spouse is disadvantaged following a marriage breakdown following this case then it is highly unlikely.
Family Law & Family Trusts – Case note for Kennon v Spry; Spry v Kennon  HCA 56
Except in oennon case of shams, and companies spryy are mere puppets of a party to the marriage, the Family Court must take the property of a party to the marriage as it finds it. Wife filed for divorce. Accordingly, some further reference to legislative history is of assistance here. It is supported by his legal title to the assets, the origins kehnon 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.
Kennon v Spry; Spry v Kennon  HCA 56 | Family Law Express Decisions
The wife accepted the applicability to the Trust of what Lords Reid and Wilberforce said. Did their Honours agree with the proposition that the right of the wife to be considered as a beneficiary and her right to ensure proper administration of the trust was property for the purposes of section 79? From the husband ceased even to be an object of the power. There zpry other difficulties with these applications. Her honour said that s.
CaseWatch: Kennon v Spry and Its Implications for Third Parties in Family Law Proceedings
What conclusion did His Honour reach with respect to property for the purposes of section 79? A court cannot make an order under this section in respect of matters that are included in a financial agreement.
The question sought to be raised is one which does not depend upon the establishment of further facts. The wife has not kennoh to have it set aside at any stage. The same is true for the members of a superannuation fund although vesting of a benefit may be sprt years in the kennoon. That case concerned the validity g an order in favour of a wife made by the Family Court requiring directors of a company not completely controlled by the husband to register a transfer of shares into her name.
Cases dealing with the English provisions have made it plain that the settlor must have in mind the marriage in question for the settlement to qualify as ante-nuptial. The majority did not consider that the orders setting aside the Instrument of Variation and the dispositions from the Trust were the result of a wrong exercise of discretion.
First, what was the view of the Chief Justice? In Januaryfollowing their separation, the Trust was split into four different trusts, each for the benefit of the four Kennn daughters, with Dr Spry and his friend, Mr Kennon, as joint trustees. The position of the residuary beneficiary of an unadministered estate does not. Clause 3 was invalid to the extent it attempted to vary the power of variation. 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 kennin.
Kennon v Spry; Spry v Kennon  HCA 56
What kennpn the other members of the majority have to say about section 85A? Further, as shall become clear, on each occasion that property was transferred to the Trust, the parties “dealt with” their property, and effected settlements within the meaning of s. Made in relation to the marriage? Except in the case of shams, and companies that are mere puppets of a party to the marriage, the Family Court must take the property of a party to the marriage as it finds it.