JUDGE:	HARGRAVE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	14, 26-30 March, 2, 4, 17 April, 9, 24, 30 May 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	1 June 2012
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Robert Deutsch & Ors v Erwin Deutsch & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSC 227

---

TRUSTS – Derivative claims by potential beneficiaries against defaulting fiduciary – Whether standing to sue – Whether new trustees should be appointed to deadlocked corporate trustees.

FRUSTRATION – Whether appointment of receivers frustrated terms of settlement.

ACCORD AND SATISFACTION – Accord and conditional satisfaction – Plaintiffs elected to treat terms of settlement as at an end and to sue on the compromise – Osborn v McDermott [1998] 3 VR 1, 10-11 applied.

RELEASE – Scope of release using general words – Whether claims in proceeding within contemplation of parties – Grant v John Grant & Sons Pty Ltd (1954) 91 CLR 112 applied.

EQUITY – Defaulting fiduciary – Whether allowance should be made for fiduciary’s work in managing trust business.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For Plaintiffs/Defendants by counterclaim	Mr S Anderson SC with Mr J Slattery	Holding Redlich
For the First Defendant	Mr E Deutsch in person
For the Second to Eighth Defendants	No appearance
For the Ninth to Sixteenth Defendants/Plaintiffs by counterclaim	Mr G Efron, Solicitor	Efron & Associates

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Summary of facts and issues in the main proceeding................................................................. 3

Do the plaintiffs have standing to sue on behalf of the trusts?.............................................. 15

Did Erwin misappropriate any trust funds?............................................................................... 17

Was time of the essence of Erwin’s obligations under the terms of settlement? Was it an implied term of the terms of settlement that Erwin would perform his obligation within a reasonable time? 18

Did Erwin breach the terms of settlement?................................................................................. 20

Were the terms of settlement frustrated before any breach by Erwin?.................................. 27

Did Erwin’s breaches constitute a repudiation of the terms of settlement? If so, has that repudiation been accepted?.................................................................................................................................. 32

If the repudiation was accepted, what claims may be pursued?............................................. 40

If the repudiation was not accepted, what claims may be pursued?...................................... 40

Did Robert suffer recoverable loss?.............................................................................................. 50

Did the St Kilda Road trust and/or the Cooee Trust suffer recoverable loss?...................... 51

Did the property trusts suffer recoverable loss?......................................................................... 51

What management role did Erwin play in the Cooee business at relevant times?.............. 52

Is Erwin entitled to any adjustment to compensate him for his management role?........... 60

What monetary relief should be ordered in the main proceeding?........................................ 66

Should a new trustee be appointed to some or all of the trusts?............................................ 67

Conclusion and orders.................................................................................................................... 67

HIS HONOUR:

Robert and Erwin Deutsch are brothers. Robert is the older brother. They and their families both observe and practice the Jewish religion in an orthodox manner. For approximately 30 years, they jointly…

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 Deutsch v Deutsch

Details

AGLC: Deutsch v Deutsch [2012] VSC 227
Case: [2012] VSC 227
Decision Date: 1 June 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Deutsch v Deutsch involved potential beneficiaries seeking to sue on behalf of a trust against defaulting fiduciaries. The plaintiffs sought to challenge the terms of a settlement agreement and the appointment of receivers, as well as to have new trustees appointed due to a deadlock among the corporate trustees. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiffs had standing to sue, whether the appointment of receivers frustrated the terms of the settlement, and whether the terms of the settlement could be treated as at an end following an accord and satisfaction.

The court found that the plaintiffs did have standing to sue, as they were potential beneficiaries of the trust. The court also determined that the appointment of receivers did not frustrate the terms of the settlement. Regarding the accord and satisfaction, the court held that the plaintiffs had elected to treat the terms of the settlement as at an end and to sue on the compromise, in line with the principles established in Osborn v McDermott. The scope of the release was considered, and the court found that the claims in the proceeding were within the contemplation of the parties, applying the principles set out in Grant v John Grant & Sons Pty Ltd.

The court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, allowing them to challenge the settlement terms and seek the appointment of new trustees. The final orders of the court included directions for the appointment of new trustees and the continuation of the proceedings to address the claims made by the plaintiffs against the defaulting fiduciaries.

Orders