Legal Research
Cases
Chan v Valmorbida Custodians Pty Ltd

Chan v Valmorbida Custodians Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 14 September 2020 68 min read

Contents

On this page

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMERCIAL COURT
COMMERCIAL LIST

S CI 2017 03211

KAIRU (‘ERICA’) CHAN & ORS	Plaintiffs
v
VALMORBIDA CUSTODIANS PTY LTD (ACN 609 840 539) & ORS (according to the Schedule)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	DELANY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	24 July 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	14 September 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Chan v Valmorbida Custodians Pty Ltd (Ruling)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 590

---

EQUITY – Trusts – Beneficiary application for inspection of trust documents – Alleged breach of trust – Existing and prospective discovery orders – Piecemeal provision of limited trust documents – Whether beneficiary proprietary right to inspection – Whether inspection discretionary in court’s supervisory jurisdiction – Application granted – Orders made for inspection to enable meaningful scrutiny of administration of trusts – O’Rourke v Darbishire [1920] AC 581, Schmidt v Rosewood Trust Ltd [2003] 2 AC 709, Deutsch v Trumble [2016] VSC 263, (2016) 52 VR 108; Erceg v Erceg (2017) 1 NZLR 320 considered.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Ms C Sparke QC with Mr J Barber and Mr J Carney	Arnold Bloch Leibler
For the first Defendant	Ms L Buckley, solicitor	KCL Law
For the second, third and fourth Defendants	Mr S Senathiraja QC with Mr J Graham	Lawson Hughes Peter Walsh
For the fifth Defendant	Mr I Waller QC with Mr J Mereine	HWL Ebsworth

HIS HONOUR:

The parties and the trusts

Kairu (‘Erica’) Chan personally ( the first plaintiff) and in her capacity as the executrix of the estate of her late husband, Adrian Valmorbida (deceased)( the second plaintiff) is the moving party in this litigation. Shortly after the death of her husband, Adrian Valmorbida, aged 57, on 4 August 2016, after a long battle with cancer, there was a falling out between Kairu Chan and her two young daughters, Xuan Valmorbida, born 6 September 2006, and Ruowei Valmorbida, born 27 August 2012, and the Valmorbida family.

In 2017 three separate proceeding were issued in this Court, including this proceeding (the ‘Trustee Removal Proceeding’).

Admarval Pty Ltd (‘Admarval’, the third plaintiff) is a company that, prior to his death, was controlled by Adrian and is now controlled by Kairu Chan. As well as holding all of the shares in Admarval, Kairu Chan is and since 26 October 2016 has been the sole director of Admarval.

From 23 May 2006 when the Admarval Trust was established until December 2016, Admarval was trustee of the Admarval Trust. The Principals (protectors) of the trust as named in the original trust deed were Adrian and his father Mariano Valmorbida. On 12 February 2016 Adrian and Mariano appointed Valmorbida Custodians Pty Ltd (‘VCPL’) as the Principal of the trust.

Adjoval Pty Ltd (‘Adjoval’, the fourth plaintiff) is trustee of the Adrian Valmorbida Family Trust (‘AVFT’). Adjoval is a company also controlled by Kairu Chan. It was added as a plaintiff to this proceeding on 24 July 2020.

VCPL…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Chan v Valmorbida Custodians Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] VSC 590
Decision Date: 14 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Chan v Valmorbida Custodians Pty Ltd involved a beneficiary's application for inspection of trust documents, alleging a breach of trust. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff, Chan, sought to inspect the trust documents to determine if there had been a breach of trust by the defendant, Valmorbida Custodians Pty Ltd, the trustees. The legal issues revolved around the beneficiary's right to inspect trust documents, whether such inspection was a discretionary matter under the court's supervisory jurisdiction, and the appropriateness of piecemeal provision of limited trust documents.

The court examined whether the beneficiary had a proprietary right to inspect the trust documents, considering the precedent set by cases such as O’Rourke v Darbishire and Schmidt v Rosewood Trust Ltd. The court noted that the inspection of trust documents is integral to a beneficiary's ability to oversee the trustees' administration. The court also evaluated whether the inspection was within the discretionary powers of the court, referencing Deutsch v Trumble and Erceg v Erceg. Ultimately, the court found that the plaintiff had a legitimate interest in the inspection of the trust documents to enable meaningful scrutiny of the trustees' actions. The court concluded that the inspection was necessary to protect the plaintiff's interests and ensure the proper administration of the trusts.

In light of the findings, the court granted the application for inspection and made orders to facilitate a comprehensive review of the trust documents. The orders required the trustees to provide all relevant documents to the plaintiff, ensuring that the inspection was thorough and not limited to selective disclosure. This decision underscored the importance of transparency and accountability in trust administration. The court's ruling aimed to safeguard the beneficiaries' rights and maintain the integrity of the trust arrangements.

Orders