‘NEEDS CLEARING UP”

Dominion, Volume 27, Issue 183, 2 May 1934, Page 7

‘NEEDS CLEARING UP”

Life Insurance Amendment COURT OF APPEAL CASE “From any point Of view thfe case shows that the existing legislation regarding the protection of lifelmuran ce policies is unsatisfactory, and the matter Is of such importance as In my opinion to call for urgent consideration by those responsible for the framing of our Statutes,” stated the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) in a .judgment delivered in the Court of Appeal yesterday. Among the other judges who delivered ..individual judgments on the same case a similar opinion was expressed. The case decided involved the correctness or otherwise of contentions concerning the marshalling of securities in the estate of Bert Tremain, .a builder, of Petone, who died in 19ALPlaintiff was bis widow, Linda Margaret Tremain, and the Public Trustee .was defendant. Under Tremain’s will the Public Trustee was appointed executor, and the whole of his estate was bequeathed to' his wife. When testator died he was indebted to the Commercial Bank of Australia, for which the bank held a mortgage over some of his land and a life insurance policy transferred to it. ■ Plaintiff claimed that, by virtue jf protection afforded by Life Insurance Acts, if the policy of insurance bad not been transferred to the bank, she would have been entitled to receive all moneys payable In respect of the policy, notwithstanding the existence of unsecured creditors. Furthermore, in consecjuehce of the bank having elected to realise its security over the policy, by which she bad almost wholly been deprived of its benefit, she wqs entitled to marshal securities held by the bank and require that the proceeds of the sale by the Public Trustee of lands formerly held by the bank as security should be applied in recouping to her the loss sustained by the bank’s election. The majority decision of the Court of Appeal Is that the claims must be pronounced untenable, although It was pointed out that several of the clauses in the Life Insurance Amendment Act, 1925, were to varying extents unintelligible. ■' . Mr. Justice Blair stated: “Regarding that portion of the Chief Justices judg- . rnent dealing with the interpretation of the Life Insurance Amendment Act, 1925, and its effect, I most cordially t ■ support the views he expresses as to ■ . the necessity for an amendment clarifying the undoubted obscurities created by that Statute. Its subject matter is of such an important nature that the . urgency for amendment cannot be too greatly stressed.” ' , Mr. •P. Levi appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. W. H. Cunningham, with him Mr. B. N: Vlckerman, for defendant.