Benson v Doloraine Pty Ltd - [2025] TASSC 25

[2025] TASSC 25

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
CITATION:	Benson v Doloraine Pty Ltd [2025] TASSC 25
PARTIES:	BENSON, Christopher Ian
BENSON, Mark Andrew
BENSON, David Anthony
v
DOLORAINE PTY LTD
FOREST HILL FARM (TASMANIA) PTY LTD
BENSON, Ian
BENSON, Gloria
HERNYK, Steven Allan
ALGERI, Salvatore
FILE NO:	70/2015
DELIVERED ON:	16 April 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Hobart
HEARING DATE/S:	19, 20, 21 August 2024 and written submissions
JUDGMENT OF:	Pearce J
CATCHWORDS:

Equity – Equitable remedies – Accounts and inquiries – Generally – Account in common form – Challenge by beneficiaries of fixed trusts to payments made by trustees – Payments made to personal benefit of trustees –Family conflict in operation of farming business.

Aust Dig Equity [1271]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Applicants: A Walker
Respondents: P King, P Lunn

Solicitors:

Applicants: Terracall and Associates
Respondents: Simmons Wolfhagen

Judgment Number:	[2025] TASSC 25
Number of paragraphs:	94

Serial No 25/2025
File No 70/2015

CHRISTOPHER IAN BENSON, MARK ANDREW BENSON and DAVID ANTHONY BENSON v DOLORAINE PTY LTD,

FOREST HILL FARM (TASMANIA) PTY LTD, IAN BENSON, GLORIA BENSON,

STEVEN ALLAN HERNYK and SALVATORE ALGERI

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

PEARCE J
16 April 2025

1 On 31 August 2015 Porter J, (as he then was), ordered that an account be taken of the property of six fixed trusts which his Honour found to exist. As will be explained, the order was for an account for the period between 5 December 2014 and the date of the order, that enquiries be made, and that the respondents pay any amount found to be due on taking the account: Benson v Doloraine Pty Ltd [2015] TASSC 41, 26 Tas R 252. Almost nine years later the taking of the account was referred to me.

The background

2 The following narration of the circumstances which led to the making of the order for an account is summarised from the reasons of Porter J at [1]-[46]. The applicants, Christopher Benson, Mark Benson and David Benson, are the three sons of Ian Benson and Gloria Benson. The family was involved in a farming business in north west Tasmania engaged in the production, packing and marketing of organic vegetables and the farming of sheep and cattle. Until 31 August 2015, Doloraine Pty Ltd (Doloraine) was the trustee of the I R & G M Benson Family Trust, a discretionary trust. Doloraine was the registered proprietor of two properties in Ulverstone held on trust. Until 31 August 2015 Forest Hill Farm (Tasmania) Pty Ltd (FHFT) was the trustee of the Benson Family Trust, another discretionary trust. FHFT was the registered proprietor of five separate properties in the Don and Forth areas which it held as trustee and as the vehicle for the operations of the farming business. Ian and Gloria Benson were the principals, and in control, of both companies. In these reasons, references to Mr and Mrs Benson are references to Ian and Gloria Benson. Mr and Mrs Benson were also the joint…

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 Benson v Doloraine Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Benson v Doloraine Pty Ltd [2025] TASSC 25
Case: [2025] TASSC 25
Decision Date: 16 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Benson v Doloraine Pty Ltd involved a dispute between family members managing a farming business. The plaintiffs, who were beneficiaries of a fixed trust, challenged payments made by the trustees, Doloraine Pty Ltd, who were also family members. The plaintiffs alleged that the trustees had improperly used trust funds for personal benefit, rather than for the benefit of the trust. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The central legal issue was whether the trustees had breached their fiduciary duties by using trust funds for personal purposes. The plaintiffs argued that the trustees had misapplied trust funds and that they were entitled to an account of those funds and any benefit derived from them. The defendants contended that the payments in question were legitimate expenses of the business and not personal expenditures. The court was required to determine whether the trustees had properly discharged their duties and whether the plaintiffs were entitled to equitable remedies.

The court found that the trustees had indeed breached their fiduciary duties by using trust funds for personal benefit. The evidence showed that the trustees had made payments for personal expenses, such as holidays and vehicle purchases, which were not related to the operation of the farming business. The court held that the trustees had failed to maintain the trust property separate from their personal assets, and that they had acted in breach of their fiduciary duties. The court ordered the trustees to provide an account of the trust funds and to repay any sums that had been improperly used. The court also appointed an independent receiver to manage the trust property pending resolution of the dispute.

Orders