Allan and Allan and Ors

In the matter of *Allan and Allan and Ors*, Watts J considered applications concerning the assets of W Nominees No. 2 Pty Limited and the AM Trust. The primary dispute involved the Receivers and Managers of W Nominees seeking to sell various assets, including those of the AM Trust, to satisfy liabilities of W Nominees. The proceedings also involved restraining orders against the trustee of the AM Trust and the husband in his capacity as protector of that trust, as well as orders concerning the sale of a property owned by W Nominees.

The court was required to determine several legal issues, including the extent to which the Receivers could dispose of assets held by the AM Trust, the validity and scope of restraining orders against the trustee and protector of the AM Trust, and the conditions under which W Nominees could sell a specific property. Additionally, the court had to consider applications made by other respondents and the implications of existing court orders on the proposed sale of assets.

Watts J made a series of orders addressing these issues. The application by the 3rd to 6th respondents was adjourned. Restraining orders were continued against the Receivers concerning specific paintings, requiring notice to be given to the 6th and 4th respondents. The trustee of the AM Trust was restrained from dealing with any trust assets or distributing capital or income, and the husband, as protector, was restrained from removing the trustee or appointing a substitute. The Receivers were authorised to seize, take possession of, and sell all assets of the AM Trust and certain collectables, with proceeds to be applied to W Nominees' liabilities. The proceeds from the sale of 23 specific items were to be held in a controlled monies account pending finalisation of proceedings. The applications of the 12th respondent were dismissed. The court also discharged an earlier order to the extent necessary to permit the sale of a property by W Nominees, subject to conditions including advice from U Pty Limited regarding subdivision and rezoning, and 21 days' notice to the husband, who retained liberty to apply to the court regarding the sale. Subpoenas issued by the wife were stood over.