Aileen Pty Ltd v One Hawker Holdings Pty Ltd
[2006] VSC 135
•7 April 2006
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted | |
AT MELBOURNE
COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION
No. 5955 of 2005
IN THE MATTER of the Will and Estate of John Adrian Wilson Deceased
IN THE MATTER of an application pursuant to s 51 of the Trustee Act and s 58 of the Transfer of Land Act
BETWEEN
| AILEEN PTY LTD (ACN 076 879 171) | Plaintiff |
| and | |
| ONE HAWKER HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 006 813 743) AND CRYSTAL SIENNA RICHARDSON (BY HER LITIGATION GUARDIAN ELIZABETH ANNETTE RICHARDSON) | Defendants |
JUDGE: | WILLIAMS J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATES OF HEARING: | 16 – 20 January; 15 February 2006 | |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 7 April 2006 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Aileen Pty Ltd v One Hawker Holdings Pty Ltd | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2006] VSC 135 | |
---
TRUST - Intention to create trust - Settlor unaware of trust deed - Settlor’s signature on trust deed forged – Trust by transfer of land – Whether trust evidenced in writing – Effect of nomination of appointor by will – Whether appointor’s powers under terms of trust limited by direction in will
TRUSTEES – Appointment of trustee – Whether appointment of trustee by appointor valid
WILLS – Construction –Whether direction as to exercise of power of appointment applies to powers of appointor under terms of trust
Section 53(1)(b) Property Law Act 1958
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Plaintiff | Mr G Nash QC | Harding & Co Lawyers |
| For the First Defendant | Mr P R Hayes QC with Dr R J Sadler | W P Edwards |
| For the Second Defendant | Mr R Miller | Kempsons |
HER HONOUR:
The plaintiff (“Aileen”) seeks directions from the Court by its summons filed on 8 November 2005.
Aileen commenced the proceeding by originating motion filed on 9 May 2005 seeking orders under s 51 of the Trustee Act 1958 recognising the vesting in it of the remaining two allotments (“the property”) of a three lot subdivision of land situated at and known variously as 1–11 Matthews Avenue and 1-11 Hawker Street, Airport West (“the land”). Aileen alleges that the property is held by its registered proprietor, the first defendant (“OHH”), upon trust for it upon the terms of a trust known as the “One Hawker Holdings Trust”. Aileen claims to have been validly appointed as the trustee and to be entitled to a transfer of the property from OHH. The land was formerly owned by the late John Wilson (“the deceased”) and the second defendant is his infant daughter (“Crystal Richardson”).
I note that there has been an ongoing dispute between the parties in relation to the sale of Lot 1 and various orders and directions relating to the conduct of the sale, irrelevant for present purposes, have been made by the Court.
The issues
On 14 November 2005 Hansen, J referred Aileen’s summons for directions to the Listing Master for determination of the following issues:
(1) the status of the One Hawker Holdings Trust;
(2) the assets held in the One Hawker Holdings Trust;
(3) the capacity in which OHH holds the property; and
(4) the beneficial ownership of the property.
Senior counsel for OHH identified, as the crucial issues, those the subject of questions (1), (3) and (4). The questions are to be answered with reference to the terms of the will dated 6 January 2003 (“the will”) of the deceased.
Findings of fact
Having considered the evidence and submissions of counsel, I am satisfied of the facts set out in the following paragraphs.
The deceased had owned the land from about 1977. Through his company, ET Pty Ltd, he had conducted a timber yard business known as “Essendon Timber” from the land which he ultimately wished to develop. He intended to subdivide it into three allotments and to construct a factory on each. The Essendon Timber business was to be carried on from the factory to be built on Lot 3. By December 2001, the deceased had entered into an agreement with Autobarn Group Consolidated Pty Ltd (“Autobarn”) for a ten year lease of a proposed showroom/warehouse to be built on Lot 1.
The deceased sought advice from the accountant, Mr Anthony De Leonardis, who had acted for him and the entities owned or controlled by him since 1998. He told Mr De Leonardis that he did not want to continue to hold the land in his own name. He wanted to make it unavailable to anyone suing him. He emphasised to Mr De Leonardis that he wanted to control the land and he also advised him that he wanted to provide for his children. They discussed available options, including the setting up of a trust. The deceased had previously established property trusts to hold properties at Essendon (“the Scott Property Trust”) and Macedon (“the Macedon Property Trust”). Because Mr De Leonardis was of the view that any profit relating to the disposal of the land would not be subject to capital gains tax whilst owned by the deceased, he advised the deceased to retain it. Nevertheless, the deceased instructed Mr De Leonardis that he wished to proceed to transfer the land to a trust.
Mr De Leonardis arranged for the firm Abbots to prepare the necessary trust documents. He received instructions from the deceased as to relevant details, including the names of the appointor and the beneficiaries. The deceased was to be the appointor with power to revoke the appointment of the trustee and to appoint a new trustee. The deceased controlled a company, named Flaxbon Pty Ltd, which was to be used as the trustee. He held its two issued shares and was its sole director at all relevant times. The deceased instructed Mr De Leonardis that the deceased, his son, Mr Darren Wilson and Crystal Richardson were to be the income and capital beneficiaries.
The trust deed
Abbots prepared the trust deed (“the trust deed”) which was executed by the deceased, as a director of OHH under its company seal, on 31 May 2003. The trust is named “One Hawker Holdings Trust” in the trust deed. OHH is described throughout the trust deed as the “Trustees”, although it is the sole trustee. The settled sum is shown as $10.00.
Mr Bollinger is nominated as the settlor. Mr Bollinger’s signature on the trust deed was forged. He did not know about the trust deed, at the time of its execution, nor did he provide the settled sum which the trust deed indicated he proposed to transfer to OHH upon trust.
The date of the settlement is shown as 2 January 2002. (Flaxbon’s name had been changed to One Hawker Holdings Pty Ltd, with effect from that date.) Mr De Leonardis believed that the land had been held upon trust from that date and the deceased intended to take advantage of GST credits relating to its development thereafter.
The trust deed provides for the establishment of a trust fund in clause 1, as follows:
“1. The Trustees shall hold the Settled Sum and any other property which may be paid transferred or delivered to the Trustees to be held upon the trusts of this settlement and the investments and monies for the time being representing the same (the Trust Fund) upon the trusts and with and subject to the powers and provisions set out in this deed.”
The trust, the terms of which are set out in the trust deed, is a discretionary trust in relation to the income from the trust fund and a fixed trust in respect of the capital. Under clause 15(a)(i), the trustee has discretionary powers to distribute income from the trust fund for the benefit of “the discretionary class”: in this case, the nominated “Corpus Beneficiaries”, their specified relatives and assorted entities and persons. The Corpus Beneficiaries are shown in the schedule to the trust deed to be the deceased, Mr Darren Wilson and Crystal Richardson (described as “Crystal Sienna Wilson”). The trustee also has the power to advance capital to or for the benefit of the Corpus Beneficiaries, under clause 7.
Under clause 15(b), the trustee is to hold the trust fund subject to the trusts set out in the trust deed until the vesting date, upon which it is to hold the trust fund upon trust for the Corpus Beneficiaries in equal shares. The schedule to the trust deed shows the vesting date as eighty years from 2 January 2002, or an earlier date appointed by the trustee. If a Corpus Beneficiary shall have died before the vesting date, the trustee is to hold his or her share of the trust fund upon trust for his or her surviving children per stirpes.
The deceased is the appointor. By clause 17, the appointor has powers to revoke the appointment of the trustee and to appoint a new trustee. The appointor is also empowered, under clause 18, to direct the trustee to act or not to act in a particular way in relation to certain parts of the trust fund and to dispose of or acquire assets from or for it. Significantly, clause 18 entitles the appointor to pass on the power of appointment by deed or will.
Clauses 19 and 23, respectively, give the trustee powers to exclude any beneficiary from benefit and to revoke, add to or vary the terms of the trust, with the written consent of the appointor.
Events occurring after the execution of the trust deed
The deceased transferred the land to OHH by a transfer of land dated 20 June 2002, expressed to be for a consideration of $485,000.
Mr De Leonardis applied for and obtained an Australian Business Number from the Australian Taxation Office for “The Trustee For One Hawker Holdings Trust”. An ABN was issued to the One Hawker Holdings Trust and registered on 2 January 2002. (I note that I am not dissuaded from making this finding of fact by the document tendered by OHH which purports to be, in effect, a negative result of a search of a data base of an organisation named “Baycorp Advantage” relating to “One Hawker Holdings Pty Ltd ATF One Hawker Holdings Trust”.)
On about 21 June 2002, the Commonwealth Bank approved a facility in the sum of $1,000,000 for “One Hawker Holdings Pty Ltd ACN 006 813 743 as trustee for the One Hawker Holdings Trust”, to fund the development of commercial showrooms on the land. The deceased’s signature appears on the bank document recording the terms of the loan.
A bank account, numbered 3153 1019 0352, held in the name of “One Hawker Holdings Pty Ltd ACN 006 813 743 ITF One Hawker Holdings Trust” with the Commonwealth Bank, was the “nominated account” for the purposes of the facility. Mr De Leonardis was aware of deposits of sums totalling $78,470.00 into this account in September and October 2002. There was no evidence of OHH having any other account of which Mr De Leonardis or any other witness was aware. Monies from the account were used to meet expenses relating to the development of the land, the development of a property at 17 Daisy Street, Essendon, the running of the Essendon Timber business and some personal expenses of the deceased, amongst others. Mr De Leonardis is of the view that the deceased had the cheque book relating to the account in his possession until his death.
The Commonwealth Bank took a registered first mortgage over the land, amongst the securities provided for the advance. The “Security Schedule” attached to the “Terms Schedule” relating to the loan facility approval describes the first mortgage as being from “One Hawker Holdings as trustee for the One Hawker Holdings Trust”.
Before making the will on 6 January 2003, the deceased made a will on 4 July 2002 (“the previous will”). The previous will appointed Mr Bollinger the deceased’s executor and trustee. It specifically referred to the One Hawker Holdings Trust in clause 6 which provided:
“SUBJECT to the foregoing trusts and disposition I GIVE AND BEQUEATH to my Trustee my shares in Hawker Holdings Pty Ltd (ACN 006 813 743) (sic) UPON TRUST to exercise his voting rights as a member and I DIRECT my Trustee to act as and assume the powers of the Appointor of the 1 HAWKER HOLDINGS TRUST (sic) and exercise such power or consent to or approve, disapprove, appoint or otherwise control the exercise of such power of appointment or disposition or remove the Trustee of the Trust and appoint a new Trustee so as to carry out and complete the development of [the land] and to lease on commercial terms the warehouse and 2 showrooms or buildings erected or to be constructed, (sic) thereon and with power to expend such part of my estate as shall be necessary or as I may otherwise direct in this paragraph of this my will upon any such development costs and any mortgage or charge over such properties. (sic)
UPON TRUST
(a) to hold the two showrooms in trust for my son DARREN JOHN WILSON to distribute the same to him in specie for his own use and benefit absolutely. (sic)
(b) to hold the warehouse Upon Trust to pay the income derived therefrom to my daughter CHRYSTAL (sic) SIENNA WILSON … until she attains the age of twenty-five years and then to distribute the warehouse property in specie to my son DARREN JOHN WILSON and CHRYSTAL (sic) SIENNA WILSON in equal shares absolutely.
The previous will also contained the following clause (which was to be virtually repeated in the will) :
“19. I NOMINATE AND APPOINT my Trustee to act as and assume the powers of either or both or any of an “Appointor” or “Guardian” or “Protector” after my death under and in pursuance of the provisions of any Deed or Deeds of Settlement or Trust of which I am now or at any time hereafter named the “Appointor”, “Guardian” or “Protector” for the purposes thereof AND I DIRECT that if my Trustees shall succeed on my death to any power, whether of appointment or otherwise, which, would enable my Trustee to exercise or consent to, approve, disapprove, appoint or otherwise control the exercise of any power of appointment or disposition with respect to any Trust or Settlement my Trustee shall exercise such power or consent to, approve, disapprove, appoint or otherwise control the exercise of such power of appointment or disposition so that the monies and properties of any such Trust or my share or interest there under shall vest in and form part of my Residuary Estate.”
The deceased died on 11 February 2003. By that date, the land had been subdivided into three allotments, the factory on Lot 3 was completed and the Essendon Timber business was operating from it. The factory/showroom on Lot 1 was incomplete and the $1m facility provided by the Commonwealth Bank had been exhausted. No finance had been arranged for the construction of the proposed factory on Lot 2.
Mr Bollinger acted on behalf of OHH, under the provisions of a power of attorney, to complete the building of the factory on Lot 1. It was completed and Autobarn took possession under a lease which commenced on 12 May 2003.
The Essendon Timber business was carried on by Mr Darren Wilson from the deceased’s death until it was closed down on about 31 October 2003. He has continued to operate the Commonwealth Bank account in the name of OHH as the Trustee of the One Hawker Holdings Trust.
The factory on Lot 3 has been subsequently leased to Westbury Holdings Pty Ltd by a lease dated 23 July 2004. Lot 2 was sold as a vacant block in about December 2003.
The will
Probate of the will was granted to Mr Bollinger, the executor and trustee appointed under its terms, on 27 October 2003.
By the will, the deceased made specific gifts of $100,000 to Mr Bollinger and of his motor vehicle to his partner, Ms Gitte Hansen. He left his shares in OHH, his shares in ET Pty Ltd and his Essendon Timber business to Mr Darren Wilson. He directed Mr Bollinger to set up a trust fund in the sum of $200,000 for the benefit of Crystal Richardson.
The will also contained specific provisions relating to each of the Scott Property Trust and the Macedon Property Trust. It contained directions to the trustee as to the actions they should take to deal with the trust assets in each case. The Essendon property at which he had lived with his partner, Ms Gitte Hansen, was to be held in trust for her absolutely, and the mortgage over that property discharged. The proceeds of the sale of the Macedon property were to be brought into the residuary estate. The relevant provisions also contained directions to the trustee as to the manner and objective of the exercise of powers of the trustees of the settlements.
There is no issue in this application relating to the validity of the provisions or the actions of Mr Bollinger in the exercise of any powers under either trust. I note that Mr Bollinger did appoint himself the trustee of the Scott Property Trust and used his powers to include Ms Hansen as a beneficiary thereunder, before accelerating the vesting date of the trust and transferring the unencumbered Essendon property to her on 4 December 2004.
By clause 12 of the will, the deceased left the balance of his residuary estate, after satisfaction of specific bequests, the establishment of the trust fund for Crystal Richardson and the payment of any amount owing under a mortgage over a property at 132 The Boulevard Essendon, upon trust for Mr Darren Wilson. The will defined the “Residuary Estate” as follows:
“all my real and personal property whatsoever and wheresoever situate including all property over which I shall have a power of appointment or disposition at my death or arising under or out of the exercise by myself or my Trustees (whether in my lifetime or after my death) of any power of appointment or disposition I or my Trustees may have under any will deed of trust or settlement superannuation policy or arrangement or howsoever otherwise”.
There was no specific reference in the will to the One Hawker Holdings Trust. However, clause 21 of the will mirrors clause 19 of the previous will, except that the “Trustee”, the subject of clause 19, is referred to in the plural in clause 21.
The appointment of Aileen as trustee
Mr Bollinger relied upon clause 21 of the will and clause 17 of the trust deed when, as appointor, he purported to revoke the appointment of OHH as the trustee of the One Hawker Holdings Trust and appoint Aileen in its place, by a Deed of Removal and Appointment of Trustee made on 18 March 2005.
It was OHH’s refusal of Aileen’s request that it transfer the property to Aileen which precipitated this proceeding.
Was the property transferred to OHH on trust on the terms of the trust deed?
The first issue to be dealt with in answering the questions for the Court is as to whether the property (as part of the land) was transferred to OHH upon trust on the terms set out in the trust deed.
I note, at the outset, my view that it is irrelevant that no fully constituted trust was created in relation to the sum of $10.00 referred to in the trust deed. Accordingly, it is also irrelevant both that Mr Bollinger, the settlor in relation to the proposed trust in respect of that money, was unaware of the existence of the trust deed and that the signature on the document purporting to be his was a forgery.
Did the deceased have the necessary intent ?
The Court must initially determine whether the deceased intended that the land be held by OHH absolutely or upon trust for the beneficiaries referred to in the trust deed. I am satisfied by the evidence of Mr De Leonardis that the deceased stated to him his intention to transfer the land to OHH upon trust for himself, Mr Darren Wilson and Crystal Richardson upon the terms set out in the trust deed, prepared in accordance with the deceased’s instructions to Mr De Leonardis. I am also satisfied that the deceased did intend to transfer the land upon the trusts set out in the trust deed and that OHH intended to take the land upon trust on those terms.
I am not persuaded by the argument that the deceased’s stated desire to retain control over the land indicated that no trust was intended and that, on the contrary, he intended to transfer the land to his company, OHH, absolutely. The discretionary trust structure was capable of providing the deceased with the desired control, because he was the appointor and had the powers described above: to direct the trustee and to replace it. He was, at the same time, the controller of the trustee company which had powers to exclude beneficiaries and vary the trust, with his consent. The trust vehicle enabled the deceased to transfer the land out of his own name and, possibly, out of the reach of anyone bringing proceedings against him personally.
Nor am I persuaded by an argument to the effect that the Court should conclude from the terms of the previous will, or those of the will, that the deceased did not intend to transfer the land to OHH upon trust. In so far as it is submitted that the deceased may have intended that the land be held by OHH upon a resulting trust for himself, the existence of such an intent would not appear to be borne out by the terms of either of the wills. Their language rather indicates that the deceased had intended to transfer the land to OHH upon the trusts set out in the trust deed. The previous will expressly refers to the “1 Hawker Holdings Trust”: providing for the passing on of the deceased’s powers as appointor, as envisaged by clause 18 of the trust deed. The will itself does not indicate that the deceased was attempting to dispose of any interest of his own in the land.
Was the trust evidenced in writing?
Section 53(1)(b) of the Property Law Act 1958 requires a trust by transfer, as well as one created by a declaration of trust, to be evidenced in writing. In my view the necessary written evidence of the trust arising upon the transfer of the land from the deceased to OHH exists in the form of the trust deed signed by the deceased on behalf of OHH under its common seal. The land falls within the description of “any other property which may be transferred … to [OHH] to be held upon the trusts of [the] settlement” forming part of the trust fund, referred to in clause 1 of the trust deed.
Further written evidence of the trust is to be found in the written Commonwealth Bank Loan application, made in the name of OHH, as trustee of the One Hawker Holdings Trust, dated 21 June 2002 and executed by the deceased as a director of OHH. The “Security Schedule” to the application notes that OHH will provide a registered first mortgage over the land, as trustee for the One Hawker Holdings Trust. The application form refers to the terms of the trust deed by stating that the bank’s approval of the loan is conditional upon, amongst other things, satisfactory “investigation and acceptance of the trust deed for the Hawker Holdings Trust by the Commonwealth Bank Legal Department“. A document constituting an admission of the trust, signed by the transferee, may constitute sufficient evidence to satisfy the requirements of the s 53(1)(b)[1].
[1]See: Perpetual Executors and Trustees Association of Australia Limited v Wright (1917) 23 CLR 185 at 196 per Isaacs, Gavan-Duffy and Rich, JJ.
Did the deceased reserve and exercise a power to revoke the trust?
I am not persuaded by OHH’s argument that the deceased intended to reserve for himself a power to revoke the trust which, although not expressly provided for in the trust deed, is to be implied from subsequent circumstances and was exercised by the direction in clause 21 of the will.
Whilst evidence of subsequent events may be admissible to rebut the existence of intent to create an irrevocable trust, even in the case of an express declaration of trust and in the absence of allegations of a sham,[2] the evidence fails to rebut intent in this case. In my view, the evidence indicates that, before the deceased’s death, he and his company, OHH, treated the land as being held by OHH as trustee of the One Hawker Holdings Trust, or, in other words, as trustee upon the terms set out in the trust deed.
[2]See: Hyhonie Holdings Pty Ltd v Leroy [2004] NSWCA 72 at [43]-[44] and [55]per Hodgson, JA.
Further, there is no express reference to any revocation of the trust by the deceased in either of the wills relied upon by OHH in support of its submissions. The relevant provisions of clause 6 of the previous will are difficult to follow. Nevertheless, they appear to recognise and attempt to operate within the structure of what is described as the “1 Hawker Holdings Trust”. They do not suggest that the deceased regarded himself as having reserved any power of revocation.
As far as the will itself is concerned, even if clause 21 were properly to be interpreted as applicable to the powers of the appointor under the terms set out in the trust deed, the direction to the appointor in that clause rather confirms that the deceased had earlier intended to transfer the land to OHH upon a trust which was not revocable by him.
Did the deceased pass his powers as appointor to Mr Bollinger by the will?
The issue then arises as to whether the deceased passed on, by will, his powers as the appointor. The terms of the trust deed do permit Mr Bollinger’s nomination as the appointor by the will. The effectiveness of the nomination is challenged on the basis that it was made only for the limited purpose encompassed by the direction. OHH argues that there was no valid nomination, in light of Mr Bollinger’s stated intention not to attempt to comply by exercising his powers as appointor so as to bring the property into the deceased’s residuary estate.
However, there is no express term of the trust which entitles the deceased to give any direction as to the manner in which the powers of the appointor should be exercised. In my view, the deceased did not have any power under the trust deed to constrain or to limit the exercise of the powers of the appointor nominated to replace him; the trust deed did not provide the deceased with a power to nominate an appointor on a conditional basis. The nomination was validly made by the will.
In any event, I am not persuaded that clause 21 relates to powers of the type held by the appointor under the terms of the trust. It seems to me that clause 21 of the will is directed at a power to deal with or dispose of property, bearing in mind that it is preceded by clause 12 which uses similar terminology in the definition of the deceased’s residuary estate. In my view, clause 21 directs Mr Bollinger to exercise any such power over property so as to bring it into the residuary estate.
I note in this regard that counsel for OHH refer, in their supplementary written submissions, to the provisions of s 13 of the Administration and Probate Act 1958 which also refer to a general power of appointment in relation to property as constituting part of a deceased person’s real property.
I also note that, in light of the trustee’s powers to exclude beneficiaries and to vary the terms of the trust, I am not persuaded by Aileen’s submission to the effect that, in any event, it would not have been possible for Mr Bollinger to achieve the objective of bringing the property into the deceased’s residuary estate.
Did Mr Bollinger validly appoint Aileen as trustee?
I am satisfied that Mr Bollinger validly removed OHH and appointed Aileen as the trustee in relation to the property by the deed made on 18 March 2005.
Conclusions
I am satisfied that, at the time of the transfer of the land (which included the property) from the deceased to OHH, each agreed and intended that it be transferred to OHH, as a trustee, to be held upon the terms set out in the trust deed.
The deceased, as the appointor under those terms, was entitled to pass on the power of appointment by will, under the provisions of clause 18 of the trust deed. He did so by clause 21 of the will: nominating Mr Bollinger as the appointor. The terms of the trust gave the deceased no right to limit the power passed on and Mr Bollinger’s power as appointor is not limited by the words of direction in clause 21 and is validly made.
Mr Bollinger validly appointed Aileen as the trustee of the property, in place of OHH, in the exercise of his powers under clause 17 of the trust deed. OHH, therefore, now holds the property upon trust for Aileen which holds it upon the trusts set out in the trust deed.
As a result of the death of the deceased, the Corpus Beneficiaries under the will are, presently, Mr Darren Wilson and Crystal Richardson (in their respective capacities as the remaining members of the class and as his surviving children).
The questions
Question (1) enquires as to the status of the One Hawker Holdings Trust. It should be answered as follows :
The trust with which the Court is concerned is that relating to the property. In so far as question (1) enquires as to whether the property is held by OHH as trustee on trust for Aileen which holds it upon the trusts set out in the trust deed, it should be answered in the affirmative.
Question (2) enquires as to the assets subject to the One Hawker Holdings Trust. It should be answered as follows :
The asset with which Question (2) is concerned is the property. The property is held upon trust by OHH for Aileen as trustee upon the terms set out in the trust deed.
Question (3) enquires as to the capacity in which OHH holds the property and Question (4) enquires as to the beneficial ownership of the property. They should be answered, in similar terms, as follows :
OHH holds the property on trust for Aileen which holds it upon the trusts set out in the trust deed.
Orders
I will hear the parties as to the form of orders.