About Us

We work collaboratively with our clients to build strong, sustainable relationships. Our team is committed to delivering consistent high standards of service, and we understand the importance of accessibility. Working with us, you'll enjoy open communication, meaning well scoped, properly resourced and effectively managed matters.

Learn More

Latest Case

Providing strategic advice on expansion structures November 16, 2018

Founded in Bondi Beach in 2012, Bailey Nelson has rapidly grown into a global eyewear retailer and service provider with boutiques in Australia, London, Canada and New Zealand. The strong demand for their products and … Continued

Latest News

Maddocks advises one of the world’s largest duty free companies on Australian market entry January 23, 2019

Law firm Maddocks has advised global duty free company Lotte Duty Free Singapore Pte Ltd, on the aquisition of Australian duty free company JR Duty Free. Under the deal, Lotte Duty Free aquired 100% of … Continued

Latest Article

Bully no more – Fair Work Commission’s jurisdiction to hear Council anti-bullying application confirmed January 31, 2019

The Fair Work Commission has confirmed a Victorian local council is a ‘constitutionally-covered business’ and thus falls within the stop bullying jurisdiction of the Commission. The decision will have implications for larger Victorian councils regarding … Continued

Katz v Grossman revisited

Despite the wide industry knowledge of the Katz v Grossman case that highlighted the importance of control over self-managed superannuation funds (SMSF), the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia in Ioppolo & Hesford v Conti [2013] WASC 389 shows that similar situations still occur. Both cases highlight the importance of effective estate planning, particularly when there is an SMSF holding a significant amount of the client's overall wealth.

What was Katz v Grossman?

Since the 2005 decision of the Supreme Court of NSW in Katz v Grossman, the case has been discussed in many articles and seminars relating to superannuation and estate planning. In the Katz v Grossman case, the deceased left a son and daughter. The deceased's will provided that his estate assets were to pass equally to his two children. Part of the deceased's wealth included about $1 million in an SMSF. Following the death, the SMSF was in the control of the daughter. The daughter caused the deceased's superannuation death benefit to be paid directly to her, and not to the deceased's estate. Accordingly, the son did not receive half the superannuation as intended by the deceased. The Court determined that the daughter was legally able to do this.

The circumstances of Katz v Grossman highlighted the importance, from the perspective of estate planning, of:

  • how control of an SMSF passes in the event of the death of a member/trustee
  • the importance of considering the relationship between binding death benefit nominations and a deceased's will.

As highlighted below in the recent decision by the Supreme Court of Western Australia in Ioppolo & Hesford v Conti [2013] WASC 389, similar situations are still occurring. 

Recent case – Ioppolo & Hesford v Conti

In Ioppolo & Hesford v Conti the deceased (Francesca Conti) had made her will and purported to leave all her superannuation entitlements to her children. She specifically stated that she did not want any superannuation entitlement paid to her husband (Augusto Conti). At the time of Francesca's death she and Augusto were the trustees of an SMSF. Following Francesca's death, Augusto retired as a trustee and appointed a corporate trustee (which was controlled by him) as the new trustee of the SMSF. The new trustee decided to pay Francesca's death benefit of $648,586 to Augusto.

Francesca's children (in their capacity as executors of her estate) took action against Augusto and the corporate trustee but failed. In particular, the executors argued that as specified in section 17A of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act, they were entitled to be appointed as co-trustees of the SMSF. Had they been appointed co-trustees, they may have been able to influence the decision in relation to the payment of the death benefit. The Court found that whilst section 17A allowed an executor to be appointed as a co-trustee, it was not mandatory that the appointment be made. The executors argument that the SMSF trustee had not acted bona fide in ignoring the wishes expressed in Francesca's will was also rejected.

The Court noted that this case illustrates how problems can arise in a family and lead to disputes relating to an SMSF and death benefit. Francesca's failure to properly document her wishes in relation to the payment of her superannuation death benefit arguably resulted in a substantial financial and emotional cost to her children.

Lesson to be learnt

The Conti Case and Katz v Grossman highlight the special issues involved in estate planning where there is superannuation (and particularly an SMSF) and the importance of thinking through the issues and tailoring an appropriate solution.

For more information about your estate planning, particularly where there is superannuation (and specifically an SMSF) involved, please contact a member of Maddocks Private Client Services Team.

Despite the wide industry knowledge of the Katz v Grossman case that highlighted the importance of control over self-managed superannuation funds (SMSF), the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia in Ioppolo & Hesford v Conti [2013] WASC 389 shows that similar situations still occur. Both cases highlight the importance of effective estate planning, particularly when there is an SMSF holding a significant amount of the client's overall wealth.

What was Katz v Grossman?

Since the 2005 decision of the Supreme Court of NSW in Katz v Grossman, the case has been discussed in many articles and seminars relating to superannuation and estate planning. In the Katz v Grossman case, the deceased left a son and daughter. The deceased's will provided that his estate assets were to pass equally to his two children. Part of the deceased's wealth included about $1 million in an SMSF. Following the death, the SMSF was in the control of the daughter. The daughter caused the deceased's superannuation death benefit to be paid directly to her, and not to the deceased's estate. Accordingly, the son did not receive half the superannuation as intended by the deceased. The Court determined that the daughter was legally able to do this.

The circumstances of Katz v Grossman highlighted the importance, from the perspective of estate planning, of:

  • how control of an SMSF passes in the event of the death of a member/trustee
  • the importance of considering the relationship between binding death benefit nominations and a deceased's will.

As highlighted below in the recent decision by the Supreme Court of Western Australia in Ioppolo & Hesford v Conti [2013] WASC 389, similar situations are still occurring. 

Recent case – Ioppolo & Hesford v Conti

In Ioppolo & Hesford v Conti the deceased (Francesca Conti) had made her will and purported to leave all her superannuation entitlements to her children. She specifically stated that she did not want any superannuation entitlement paid to her husband (Augusto Conti). At the time of Francesca's death she and Augusto were the trustees of an SMSF. Following Francesca's death, Augusto retired as a trustee and appointed a corporate trustee (which was controlled by him) as the new trustee of the SMSF. The new trustee decided to pay Francesca's death benefit of $648,586 to Augusto.

Francesca's children (in their capacity as executors of her estate) took action against Augusto and the corporate trustee but failed. In particular, the executors argued that as specified in section 17A of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act, they were entitled to be appointed as co-trustees of the SMSF. Had they been appointed co-trustees, they may have been able to influence the decision in relation to the payment of the death benefit. The Court found that whilst section 17A allowed an executor to be appointed as a co-trustee, it was not mandatory that the appointment be made. The executors argument that the SMSF trustee had not acted bona fide in ignoring the wishes expressed in Francesca's will was also rejected.

The Court noted that this case illustrates how problems can arise in a family and lead to disputes relating to an SMSF and death benefit. Francesca's failure to properly document her wishes in relation to the payment of her superannuation death benefit arguably resulted in a substantial financial and emotional cost to her children.

Lesson to be learnt

The Conti Case and Katz v Grossman highlight the special issues involved in estate planning where there is superannuation (and particularly an SMSF) and the importance of thinking through the issues and tailoring an appropriate solution.

For more information about your estate planning, particularly where there is superannuation (and specifically an SMSF) involved, please contact a member of Maddocks Private Client Services Team.