Application by Marilyn Joy Cottee; Estate of Gwenyth Shirley Smith

The application was brought by the trustees of a trust, Marilyn Joy Cottee and Gwenyth Shirley Smith, seeking judicial advice from the Court. The trust was established by a will, and the trustees were required to distribute the trust property according to the terms of the will. The trustees were seeking advice on whether they would be justified in exercising their discretion in a manner that would result in a benefit to one of the trustees. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.
The court was required to determine whether the trustees would be justified in exercising their discretion in a manner that would result in a benefit to one of the trustees. The court had to consider whether the trustees were acting within the scope of their powers and whether they were acting in the best interests of the beneficiaries. The court also had to consider whether the trustees were acting impartially and whether they were avoiding any conflict of interest.
The court considered the relevant statutory provisions and case law on the exercise of discretionary powers by trustees. The court held that the trustees would be justified in exercising their discretion in the manner sought, provided that they acted in good faith and in the best interests of the beneficiaries. The court held that the trustees were not acting within the scope of their powers if they were to act in a manner that would result in a benefit to one of the trustees. The court also held that the trustees were required to avoid any conflict of interest and to act impartially. The court held that the trustees could exercise their discretion in a manner that would result in a benefit to one of the trustees, provided that they acted in good faith and in the best interests of the beneficiaries.

The court gave judicial advice to the trustees, stating that they would be justified in exercising their discretion in the manner sought, provided that they acted in good faith and in the best interests of the beneficiaries. The court held that the trustees were not acting within the scope of their powers if they were to act in a manner that would result in a benefit to one of the trustees. The court also held that the trustees were required to avoid any conflict of interest and to act impartially. The court held that the trustees could exercise their discretion in a manner that would result in a benefit to one of the trustees, provided that they acted in good faith and in the best interests of the beneficiaries.