Application of Aesthete Pty Ltd

In the application of Aesthete Pty Ltd, the court was tasked with determining whether it had jurisdiction to provide judicial advice under section 63 of the Trustee Act 1925 (NSW), and if so, whether it should exercise its discretion to do so. The application was brought by Aesthete Pty Ltd, a company that is also a trustee of a discretionary family trust, against the trustee of another family trust, who is also a director of Aesthete Pty Ltd. The dispute arose from allegations that the trustee of the second family trust, as well as the director of Aesthete Pty Ltd, had breached their duties as trustees. The court needed to decide whether it had the authority to provide advice in these circumstances and, if so, whether it should do so given the complex nature of the case.

The court considered the relevant statutory provisions and the principles of equity that guide the exercise of the court's discretion to provide judicial advice. The court noted that while section 63 of the Trustee Act 1925 (NSW) does not explicitly provide for advice in cases involving allegations of breach of duty by trustees, the court's equitable jurisdiction to provide advice in trust matters is broad. The court also considered the potential benefits of providing advice in this case, including the possibility of resolving the dispute without the need for further litigation. However, the court was mindful of the need to protect the interests of all parties involved and the potential for the provision of advice to cause more harm than good.

The court concluded that it did have jurisdiction to provide advice under section 63 of the Trustee Act 1925 (NSW) and that it was appropriate to exercise its discretion to do so. However, the court granted the advice on limited terms, and further reasons were provided in a confidential judgment. The court ordered that the advice be provided to the parties on the condition that they keep it confidential and use it solely for the purpose of resolving the dispute. The court also made orders for costs and other incidental matters.

In summary, the court held that it had jurisdiction to provide judicial advice in this case and that it was appropriate to do so, but on limited terms. The court granted the advice and made orders for costs and other incidental matters. The reasons for the court's decision, including the confidential reasons, are set out in the full judgment.