Allan and Allan & Ors (No 4 )

The case of *Allan and Allan & Ors (No 4)* involved multiple applications before Watts J in the Family Court of Australia. The proceedings concerned a complex property dispute between a husband and wife, involving various trusts, companies, and third-party respondents. Key issues included the validity of trustee appointments, remuneration and disbursements for a former trustee, and the final property settlement between the husband and wife. The court also addressed procedural matters such as the application of the slip rule to correct an earlier order and the appointment of a case guardian for a respondent with a disability.

The court was required to determine several legal issues. These included whether to declare the removal of a trustee valid, notwithstanding existing orders restraining such a change, and whether there was compelling evidence to justify such a removal. The court also considered the entitlement of a 13th respondent to remuneration and reimbursement for disbursements as a former trustee, and whether the husband's opposition to these claims was valid. Furthermore, the court examined an application by the 13th respondent seeking payment from the wife for a debt owed by a company in liquidation, and the validity of consent orders proposed between the wife and respondents 7 to 11. Finally, the court had to consider and approve a property settlement between the husband and wife.

Watts J applied established legal principles to resolve these matters. Regarding the trustee appointment, the court found that compelling evidence was a legal standard and that an existing order precluded the husband from exercising the power of appointment. The court allowed the 13th respondent to recoup disbursements and receive remuneration, finding that the retainer agreement relied upon by the husband was not operative during the relevant period and that the trustee had acted on the husband's instructions. The application for the wife to personally pay a company's debt was dismissed, as the company was a separate legal entity and the debt was provable in its liquidation. Consent orders between the wife and respondents 7 to 11 were made, as they represented a proper commercial compromise to conclude proceedings, and the husband had no interest in the relevant funds. Ultimately, the court made consent orders for property settlement between the husband and wife, finding it just and equitable to do so, and also made orders regarding the payment of remuneration and disbursements to the 13th respondent from trust funds.