Sibling heirs in will battle

themercury.com.au

Court Reporter

THE sibling heirs to an aviation magnate’s fortune remain at loggerheads over $10m and 19ha of land at Cambridge left in their father’s estate.

Peter Hookway, who owned land at Kennedy Drive near Hobart Airport and who famously purchased a number of historical military aircraft including 12 RAAF Canberras,

SUBSCRIPTIONS 1300 696 397 died on July 24, 2006. On the day before his death, Mr Hookway – who formed Hookway Aviation, Hookway Aerospace, Ballyvergan and Sol-Rio – signed a new will gifting valuable real estate to his grandchildren.

But there was a “falling out” between Mr Hookway’s children Tamzin and Stirling, and in 2016 Supreme Court judge Stephen Estcourt ruled the will made on his deathbed was not valid. It was annexed to the Public Trustee for administration, with the siblings subsequently embroiled in a complex and lengthy legal battle.

In a judgment delivered this week, Chief Justice Alan Blow said the siblings attended mediation sessions in 2018 and reached a settlement in December that year.

However, while they agreed that document would be binding, they also agreed it was to be replaced by a more formal document.

With no further document created, Tamzin argued in court their agreement was void.

Chief Justice Blow, in deeming the contract unenforceable due to a number of contractual issues, said Mr Hookway’s de facto wife was paid $1.8 million out of the estate.

He also said the estate would need to cover debts of $674,000 plus personal income tax.

In 2012, Tamzin applied to have each of the four companies wound up, with Barry Hamilton appointed as liquidator.

In their agreement, the siblings instructed Mr Hamilton to take Hookway Aerospace out of liquidation, with distributions paid between them equally, for Stirling to resign as director, and to transfer the shares and assets plus $160,000 to Tamzin.

But Chief Justice Blow said Tamzin and Stirling didn’t have the right to instruct Mr Hamilton to do so as he didn’t have the power to take the company out of liquidation.

He also said provisions in the document were incomplete and didn’t include consequences for non-adherence.

amber.wilson@news.com.au