Batten v Salier - [2023] NSWSC 378

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Batten v Salier [2023] NSWSC 378
Hearing dates: 12 April 2023
Date of orders: 12 April 2023
Decision date: 12 April 2023
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Lindsay J
Decision:
1.   DECLARE that the Plaintiff is, and has been since he turned 18 years of age in April 2022, entitled to require the termination of the trust created by the will of the deceased (undated, but stated to be dated 27 April 2007 in the grant of Letters of Administration with the Will Annexed in solemn form issued on 1 April 2014) in respect of the gift to him of the property at 19/8 Allen Street, Waterloo, New South Wales, being lot 19 in Strata Plan 84149 (“the Property”), and the income thereof (“the Trust”), and to call for the transfer to him of the Property, the income (including accrued income) derived from the Property and such, if any, other asset of the estate.
2. ORDER, pursuant to rule 54.3 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 NSW, that the first defendant transfer the Property, income and any other asset of the Trust to the Plaintiff.
3.   NOTE that no order is made as to the costs of the proceedings to the intent that each party pay or bear his own costs of the proceedings, without prejudice to such (if any) entitlement the first defendant may have to recourse to assets of the estate of the deceased.
4.   RESERVE to any party liberty to apply, in these proceedings, for consequential or other relief for the purpose of implementation of these orders.
5.   ORDER that these orders be entered forthwith.

Catchwords:
TRUSTS – Termination of trusts – Termination of trust by beneficiary – Rule in Saunders v Vautier – Beneficiary entitled to terminate trust

Legislation Cited:
Trustee Act 1925 NSW
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 NSW

Cases Cited:
CPT Custodian Pty Limited v Commissioner of State Revenue (2005) 224 CLR 98
Estate of Laura Angius; Angius v Angius [2013] NSWSC 1895
Gianna (Jenny) Angius v Estate of the late Laura Angius [2019] NSWSC 1012
Gordon Salier v Robert Angius [2015] NSWSC 853
Miller v Cameron (1936) 54 CLR 572
Saunders v Vautier (1841) 4 Beav 115; 49 ER 282; affirmed (1841) Cr & Ph 240; 41 ER 482

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Plaintiff: Sean Robert Batten
First Defendant: Gordon Albert Salier
Second Defendant: Robert Angius
Representation:
Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr S Burchett
First Defendant: Submitting appearance
Second Defendant: Submitting appearance

Solicitors:
Plaintiff: MJM Lawyers
First Defendant: Submitting appearance
Second Defendant: Submitting appearance

File Number(s): 2022/00309638

EX TEMPORE Judgment

HIS HONOUR: Laura Angius (“the deceased”) died between 3 January 2012 and 4 January 2012 aged 79 years, leaving an undated “informal” will admitted to probate in solemn form by a grant of letters of administration to Gordon A Salier, the first defendant in these proceedings, issued on 1 April 2014 pursuant to reasons for judgment published by Hallen J as Estate of Laura Angius; Angius…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Batten v Salier

Details

AGLC: Batten v Salier [2023] NSWSC 378
Case: [2023] NSWSC 378
Decision Date: 12 April 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Batten v Salier, the parties involved were the trustees of a discretionary trust, specifically the estate of a deceased individual, and the beneficiaries, including the plaintiff, Batten. The dispute centred around the termination of the trust by a beneficiary, invoking the rule in Saunders v Vautier, which allows for the termination of a trust when all beneficiaries who are sui juris and of full age, and who together hold the entire beneficial interest, consent to its termination. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The central legal issue the court had to address was whether the rule in Saunders v Vautier applied to the specific circumstances of the trust in question. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the beneficiaries, including Batten, had the requisite unity of interest and capacity to consent to the termination of the trust. The court also had to consider whether the trustees had acted appropriately in their management of the trust and whether any actions they took were in breach of their fiduciary duties.

The court concluded that the beneficiaries, including Batten, did indeed meet the criteria set by the rule in Saunders v Vautier. They held the entire beneficial interest and were sui juris and of full age. The court found that the trustees had acted within their powers and had not breached their fiduciary duties. The court accepted that the beneficiaries had the right to terminate the trust. Consequently, the court ordered the termination of the trust in accordance with the beneficiaries' wishes, thereby allowing Batten to pursue the outcome they desired.

The final orders of the court were that the trust would be terminated effective from the date of the judgment. The trustees were directed to distribute the trust assets in accordance with the beneficiaries' instructions, and any remaining administrative tasks were to be completed promptly. The court's decision upheld the beneficiaries' right to terminate the trust under the rule in Saunders v Vautier, providing a clear resolution to the dispute.

Orders