Legal Research
Cases
El Sayed v El Hawach

El Sayed v El Hawach

Case [2015] NSWCA 26 26 February 2015

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: El Sayed v El Hawach [2015] NSWCA 26
Hearing dates: 10 February 2015
Decision date: 26 February 2015
Before: Beazley P; Gleeson JA; Leeming JA
Decision:
1. Appeal dismissed.
2. Cross-appeal allowed.
3. Order 6 made on 20 December 2013 be set aside.
4. Vary order 7 made on 20 December 2013 by deleting the word “otherwise”.
5. Vary order 8 made on 20 December 2013 by deleting the words “75% of”.
6. Order that the appellants/cross-respondents pay the costs of the respondents/cross-appellants of the appeal and cross-appeal.
Catchwords:
TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES - "discretionary trust" - appointor purported to exercise powers inconsistently - standing - whether eligible beneficiaries of discretionary trust had standing to bring derivative action - where proceedings had been brought against eligible beneficiaries - where eligible beneficiaries claimed to have become trustee and appointor - whether special circumstances established - eligible beneficiaries had standing
TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES - fiduciary duties - whether purported appointment of eligible beneficiary who acted as trustee's solicitor as appointor a breach of duty - obligation to consider scope of fiduciary obligations - no breach established
Legislation Cited: Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 75
Cases Cited: Alexander v Perpetual Trustees WA Ltd [2004] HCA 7; 216 CLR 109
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Carey [No 6] [2006] FCA 814; 153 FCR 509
Barescape Pty Limited as trustee for The V’s Family Trust & Anor v Bacchus Holdings Pty Limited as trustee for The Bacchus Holdings Trust & Anor (No 9) [2012] NSWSC 984
Beach Petroleum NL v Kennedy [1999] NSWCA 408; 48 NSWLR 1
Boulting v Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians [1963] 2 QB 606
Bray v Ford [1896] AC 44
Chief Commissioner of Stamp Duties (NSW) v Buckle [1998] HCA 4; 192 CLR 226
Deutsch v Deutsch [2012] VSC 227; 6 ASTLR 386
Ex parte Hebburn; Re Kearsley Shire Council (1947) 47 SR (NSW) 416
Highland v Labraga (No 2) [2005] NSWSC 1212
In re Coomber; Coomber v Coomber [1911] 1 Ch 723
In re Skeats’ Settlement (1889) 42 Ch D 522
In the Matter of X (Trust) [2012] JRC 171
Kearns v Hill (1990) 21 NSWLR 107
Lewis v Condon [2013] NSWCA 204; 85 NSWLR 99
Pearson v Commissioner of Taxation [2001] FCA 1427; 116 FCR 357
Rigg v Sheridan [2008] NSWCA 79
Sharpe v San Paulo Railway Company (1873) LR 8 Ch App 597
Warman International Ltd v Dwyer [1995] HCA 18; 182 CLR 544
Texts Cited: P Finn, Fiduciary Obligations Law Book Company, 1977
G Thomas and A Hudson, The Law of Trusts Oxford University Press, 2nd ed, 2010
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Khaled El Sayed (1st Appellant and 1st Cross-Respondent)
M E Asset Investments Pty Ltd (2nd Appellant and 2nd Cross-Respondent)
Sayed El Hawach (1st Respondent and 1st Cross-Appellant)
Victoria Lahoud (2nd Respondent and 2nd Cross-Appellant)
Brady Street Developments Pty Ltd (3rd Respondent)

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 El Sayed v El Hawach

Details

AGLC: El Sayed v El Hawach [2015] NSWCA 26
Case: [2015] NSWCA 26
Decision Date: 26 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *El Sayed v El Hawach* concerned a dispute between beneficiaries of a discretionary trust. The primary issue before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales was whether certain eligible beneficiaries had standing to bring a derivative action concerning the trust's administration, particularly in circumstances where proceedings had already been instituted against them, and they claimed to have become both trustee and appointor.

The court was required to determine two principal legal issues. Firstly, whether the eligible beneficiaries possessed the necessary standing to commence derivative proceedings, and if so, whether special circumstances existed to justify such an action. Secondly, the court considered whether the purported appointment of an eligible beneficiary, who also acted as the trustee's solicitor, as an appointor constituted a breach of fiduciary duty, and whether the fiduciary was obligated to consider the scope of their fiduciary obligations in making such an appointment.

In its reasoning, the Court of Appeal found that the eligible beneficiaries did have standing to bring the derivative action, establishing the existence of special circumstances. The court also determined that the appointment of the beneficiary who acted as solicitor did not constitute a breach of fiduciary duty, as no breach was established.

The appeal was dismissed, while the cross-appeal was allowed. Consequently, specific orders made on 20 December 2013 were set aside or varied, and the appellants/cross-respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the respondents/cross-appellants for both the appeal and the cross-appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed.

2. Cross-appeal allowed.

3. Order 6 made on 20 December 2013 be set aside.

4. Vary order 7 made on 20 December 2013 by deleting the word “otherwise”.

5. Vary order 8 made on 20 December 2013 by deleting the words “75% of”.

6. Order that the appellants/cross-respondents pay the costs of the respondents/cross-appellants of the appeal and cross-appeal.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citations

AGLC Citation

El Sayed v El Hawach [2015] NSWCA 26

Most Recent Citation

Nicholson Street Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation) v Letten [2015] VSC 583

Cases citing this decision · 23 of 23 shown

SAP v SAD1
[2025] NSWSC 138

…gs Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCA 184; (2017) 106 ATR 151 El Sayed v El Hawach (2015) 88 NSWLR 214; [2015] NSWCA 26 GLJ v The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Lismore [2023] HCA 32; (2023) 97 ALJR 857; (2023) 414 ALR 635 Le v Angius; Angius v Angius [2024] NSWSC 924 Lim v Lim [2023] NSWCA 84 Litchfie…
In the matter of Gillespies Cranes Nominees Pty Ltd
[2024] NSWSC 1136 Para 49

…o distribute trust property to them, relying on the Court of Appeal’s decision in El Sayed v El Hawach (2015) 88 NSWLR 214; (2015) 317 ALR 771; [2015] NSWCA 26 at [66] (“ El Sayed ”); the trust deed for the GFT established a “discretionary trust” by which broad powers were conferred on GCN, relying on Kerns v Hill…
Moore v Bond University Ltd
[2023] NSWSC 1129 Para 90

…ligation that a person is said to be subject to when determining whether any breach of duty has arisen; see El Sayed v El Hawach (2015) 88 NSWLR 214; [2015] NSWCA 26 at [62]‑[63].…
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Jones
[2023] WASCA 130

…32 Djordjevich v Rohrt [2022] VSCA 84; (2022) 67 VR 161 Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63; (2000) 205 CLR 337 El Sayed v El Hawach [2015] NSWCA 26; (2015) 88 NSWLR 214 Gemstone Corporation of Australia Ltd v Grasso (1994) 62 SASR 239 Glenfyne International Holding Ltd v Glenfyne Farms Internatio…
Gillespie v Gillespies Cranes Nominees Pty Ltd
[2022] NSWSC 1184

…CA 52 Chahwan v Euphoric Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 805 Edwards v Halliwell [1950] 2 All ER 1064 El Sayed v El Hawach (2015) 88 NSWLR 214 Foss v Harbottle (1843) 2 Hare 461; 67 ER 189 Harmer v Armstrong [1934] Ch 65 Hayim v Citibank NA [1987] AC 730 Macedonian Orthodox Community Church St Petka Inc v His Eminence Petar The…
Wang v Cai
[2021] NSWSC 1162

…18 ER 464 Downey v Pryor (1960) 103 CLR 353; [1960] HCA 49 Edman v Ross (1922) 22 SR(NSW) 351 El-Sayed v El Hawach (2015) 88 NSWLR 214; [2015] NSWCA Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd v Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Limited (2013) 250 CLR 303; [2013] HCA 46 Fane v Fane (1879) 13 Ch D 228 Find…
CB Cuckoo Pty Ltd v Kyriacou
[2021] NSWSC 991 Para 15

…ing to bring such a claim consistent with the authorities considered in Ramage v Waclaw (1988) 12 NSWLR 84; El-Sayed v El Hawach (2015) 88 NSWLR 214; [2015] NSWCA 26 at [55]-[57] per Beazley P, as Her Excellency then was, Gleeson and Leeming JJA; and TAL Life Ltd v Shuetrim (2016) 91 NSWLR 439; [2016] NSWCA 68 at…
Baba v Sheehan
[2021] NSWCA 58 Para 4

…erson [2013] QSC 205 at [94]-[98] (Daubney J); El Sayed v El Hawach (2015) 88 NSWLR 214 at 227 [69] (Beazley P, Gleeson and Leeming JJA); [2015] NSWCA 26; Mercanti v Mercanti (2016) 50 WAR 495; [2016] WASCA 206; Australian Conservation Services Pty Ltd v Liladel Holdings Pty Ltd (2017) 12 ACTLR 124 at 132-134 [24]…
In the matter of Reserve Hotels Pty Limited
[2021] NSWSC 376

…010] NSWSC 647 - El Sayed v El Hawach (2015) 88 NSWLR 214; (2015) 317 ALR 771; (2015) 15 ASTLR 446; [2015] NSWCA 26 - Fay v Moramba Services Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 1428 - Fistar v Riverwood Legion and Community Club Ltd (2016) 91 NSWLR 732; (2016) 18 BPR 35,799; [2016] NSWCA 81 - Hancock v Rinehart (2015) 13 ASTLR 1…
Kellett v Schriever
[2020] SASC 96

…erty Act 1936 (SA) ss 29(1), 41AA, referred to. Corin v Patton (1990) 169 CLR 540, discussed. Anning v Anning (1907) 4 CLR 1049; El Sayed v El Hawach (2015) 88 NSWLR 214; Milroy v Lord [1861-1873] All ER 783; Ramage v Waclaw (1988) 12 NSWLR 84; Stainton v Carron Co (1854) 52 ER 58; Travis v Milne (1851) 68 ER 449, con…
Re Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)
[2019] WASC 263 Para 11

…f beneficiaries to institute proceedings. Relevantly, the court stated: [40] [38] Blakeney v Blakeney [2016] WASCA 76 [84]. [39] El Sayed v El Hawach [2015] NSWCA 26; (2015) 88 NSWLR 214. [40] El Sayed v El Hawach [30] - [59]. Although the parties at first instance and on appeal approached the issue on the basis t…
Woodley v Woodley [No 5]
[2018] WASC 311 Para 2

…09 [55] ‑ [56]; Roberts v Gill & Co [2010] UKSC 22; [2011] 1 AC 240. [98] Lewis v Condon [2013] NSWCA 204; (2013) 85 NSWLR 99; El Sayed v El Hawach [2015] NSWCA 26; (2015) 88 NSWLR 214 [45] ‑ [54].…
Woodley v Woodley [No 4]
[2017] WASC 360 Para 8

…56]. This principle might extend to the objects of a discretionary trust: Lewis v Condon [2013] NSWCA 204; (2013) 85 NSWLR 99; El Sayed v El Hawach [2015] NSWCA 26; (2015) 88 NSWLR 214 [45] ‑ [54]. Terry has not, however, pleaded any basis on which he has standing to claim compensation on behalf of the estate.…
Butcher v Balog
[2017] NSWSC 1409

…2004] HCA 7 Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137; [1987] HCA 59 El Sayed v El Hawach (2015) 88 NSWLR 214; [2015] NSWCA 26 Lewis v Condon (2013) 85 NSWLR 99; [2013] NSWCA 204 Milling v Hardie [2014] NSWCA 163 Ramage v Waclaw (1988) 12 NSWLR 84 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Hayley Lorraine…
Chief Commissioner of State Revenue v Smeaton Grange Holdings Pty Ltd
[2017] NSWCA 184 Para 17

…s leave may be granted to a discretionary object to bring a derivative suit on behalf of the trustee: see El Sayed v El Hawach (2015) 88 NSWLR 214; [2015] NSWCA 26. Speaking generally, the rights enjoyed by a discretionary object are neither assignable nor transmissible by will or operation of law; they are ordina…
Australian Conservation Services v Liladel Holdings
[2017] ACTSC 162 Para 1

…Court of Appeal referred recently to Finn’s criticism but did not need to fully explore the obligations owed by an appointor: El Sayed v El Hawach [2015] NSWCA 26; 88 NSWLR 214 at [69].)…
Treadtel International Pty Ltd v Cocco
[2016] NSWCA 360 Para 73

…td v Ballan [2015] VSC 178 at [12], Sifris J was of the opposite opinion. The decision of this Court in El Sayed v El Hawach (2015) 88 NSWLR 214; [2015] NSWCA 26 at [56]-[57] favoured the latter view in the particular circumstances of that case and referred to the potential need for evidence to sustain the necessa…
Blakeney v Blakeney
[2016] WASCA 76

…er v Myrtace Consulting Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 480 Ehsman v New Tech Time International Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 887; (2006) 58 ACSR 705 El Sayed v El Hawach [2015] NSWCA 26; (2015) 88 NSWLR 214 Fiduciary Ltd v Morningstar Research Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 442; (2005) 53 ACSR 732 Lewis v Condon [2013] NSWCA 204; (2013) 85 NSW…
TAL Life Ltd v Shuetrim
[2016] NSWCA 68 Para 55

…Those principles require some refinement where there are many beneficiaries, often comprising different classes: see El Sayed v El Hawach [2015] NSWCA 26; 88 NSWLR 214. However, in the present case it is clear that Mr Shuetrim was the only member of the superannuation fund with an interest in the choses in action…
Nicholson Street Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation) v Letten
[2015] VSC 583 Para 1

…tes v European Bank Ltd [2004] NSWCA 82; Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Letten (No 22) (2014) FCA 681. [9] El Sayed v El Hawach [2015] NSWCA 26; Robert Deutsch & Ors v Erwin Deutsch & Ors [2012] VSC 227.…
Application by Sonya Sarkis
[2015] NSWSC 1369 Para 87

…t Sonya raises about purchasing the property seems to fall within the description of a technical or hypothetical conflict: El Sayed v El Hawach [2015] NSWCA 26.…
Segelov v Ernst & Young Services Pty Ltd
[2015] NSWCA 156 Para 2

…nominated by partners of E&Y with the consent of EYS. At the relevant time, E&Y had over 400 partners. 1. See generally El Sayed v El Hawach [2015] NSWCA 26; 317 ALR 771 at [13]-[14].…
Stephens v Chee
[2015] QSC 138 Para 20

…ries. The argument for Timothy Chee is that there should be no risk of the costs of the proposed litigation being borne by the trust fund. [11] [2015] NSWCA 26. [12] (2013) 85 NSWLR 99; [2013] NSWCA 204. [13] Roberts v Gill & Co [2011] 1 AC 240, 256 [46].…

View all 23 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 18 of 18 shown

Brady Street Developments Pty Ltd v M E Asset Investments Pty Ltd
[2013] NSWSC 1755

…umber(s): 2014/00015760 Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: Supreme Court of New South Wales Jurisdiction: Equity Division Citation: [2013] NSWSC 1755 Date of Decision: 20 December 2013 Before: Pembroke J File Number(s): 2012/266799…
Lewis v Condon
[2013] NSWCA 204 Para 30

…special circumstances conferring standing upon the objects of a discretionary power to enforce the terms of trust, in accordance with Lewis v Condon [2013] NSWCA 204; 85 NSWLR 99, although his Honour doubted the correctness of that decision. His Honour also considered at [62] that the “jurisdiction to grant declar…
Barescape Pty Ltd v Bacchus Holdings Pty Ltd (No 9)
[2012] NSWSC 984 Para 65

…scape Pty Limited as trustee for The V’s Family Trust & Anor v Bacchus Holdings Pty Limited as trustee for The Bacchus Holdings Trust & Anor (No 9) [2012] NSWSC 984 at [138]-[141]. What was required in the present case was a precise consideration of the two fiduciary offices held by Mr Hawach.…
Deutsch v Deutsch
[2012] VSC 227 Para 49

…In Deutsch v Deutsch [2012] VSC 227; 6 ASTLR 386, there was separate consideration of the question of standing by persons who “for the most part” were “mere objects of discretionary trusts” to bring a claim of breach of duty to the corporate trustee in circumstances where the trustee was deadlocked. Hargrave J co…
Rigg v Sheridan
[2008] NSWCA 79 Para 66

…etical or rhetorical conflict”. The Australian appellate authorities supporting the explanation in Boulting were collected in Rigg v Sheridan [2008] NSWCA 79 at [41]. As noted above, it is quite plain that the controller of the trustee BSD, Ms Lahoud, was entitled to cause the trustee to act in a way which favoure…
Pearson v Commissioner of Taxation
[2006] FCAFC 111 Para 51

…In Pearson v Commissioner of Taxation [2001] FCA 1427; 116 FCR 357 a Full Court of the Federal Court considered whether Mrs Pearson, who was one of two “primary beneficiaries” of the Jancy Trust, could bring a derivative action (an appeal from a decision by the Administrative Appeal Tribunal adverse to the tru…
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Carey (No 6)
[2006] FCA 814 Para 14

…; 192 CLR 226 at [8] (Brennan CJ, Toohey, Gaudron, McHugh and Gummow JJ); Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Carey [No 6] [2006] FCA 814; 153 FCR 509 at [19] (French J).…
Highland v Labraga (No 2)
[2005] NSWSC 1212 Para 48

…The reserved decision of Young CJ in Eq in Highland v Labraga (No 2) [2005] NSWSC 1212 is squarely on point. The question was whether proceedings brought by Mrs Highland, who was one of many possible beneficiaries under a trust, but of whom his Honour said that “it would not take a jury long to find that, in practic…
Re Louis Contini Foundation Trust
[2004] NSWSC 881

…“Louise was not the only person with a presently vested interest in the trust property (cf Re Louis Contini Foundation Trust [2004] NSWSC 881). Nonetheless, as a “second corpus beneficiary”, in circumstances where the “first corpus beneficiary” had disclaimed all interest in the trust property, she was the person b…
Alexander v Perpetual Trustees WA Ltd
[2004] HCA 7 Para 32

…g against a third party where a trustee was unwilling or unable to do so, in accordance with what was stated in Alexander v Perpetual Trustees WA Ltd [2004] HCA 7; 216 CLR 109 at [55]-[56]. However, they said that Mr Khaled El Sayed and MEA were not “beneficiaries stricto sensu ”, but were merely discretionary…
Pearson v Commissioner of Taxation
[2001] FCA 1427 Para 51

…In Pearson v Commissioner of Taxation [2001] FCA 1427; 116 FCR 357 a Full Court of the Federal Court considered whether Mrs Pearson, who was one of two “primary beneficiaries” of the Jancy Trust, could bring a derivative action (an appeal from a decision by the Administrative Appeal Tribunal adverse to the trustee…
Beach Petroleum NL v Kennedy
[1999] NSWCA 408 Para 67

…solicitor’s fiduciary obligation derives not from his or her status, but from the terms of his or her retainer: Beach Petroleum NL v Kennedy [1999] NSWCA 408; 48 NSWLR 1 at [188]. As noted above, all that was established on the pleadings was that from time to time, Mr Hawach acted for the trustee to sell developme…
Chief Commissioner of Stamp Duties v Buckle
[1998] HCA 4 Para 14

…rather than doctrine” and is used in a way that is “descriptive rather than normative”: Chief Commissioner of Stamp Duties (NSW) v Buckle [1998] HCA 4; 192 CLR 226 at [8] (Brennan CJ, Toohey, Gaudron, McHugh and Gummow JJ); Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Carey [No 6] [2006] FCA 814; 153 FCR…
Warman International Ltd v Dwyer
[1995] HCA 18 Para 64

…ppointor, and there was found to be a possibility of conflict which was not remote or fanciful, there was breach. In Warman International Ltd v Dwyer [1995] HCA 18; 182 CLR 544 at 559-560, the High Court approved Fletcher Moulton LJ’s statement in In re Coomber; Coomber v Coomber [1911] 1 Ch 723 at 728-729:…
[1896] AC 44
[1896] AC 44 Para 66

…Thirdly, the primary judge cited the “inflexible rule” stated by Lord Herschell in Bray v Ford [1896] AC 44 at 51 that a person in a fiduciary position is not unless otherwise expressly provided allowed to put himself in a position where his interest and duty conflict. Of course, Lord Herschell acknowledged bot…
8 Ch App 597
8 Ch App 597 Para 54

…nst the prospect of numerous claims being commenced or threatened in such circumstances: see for example Sharpe v San Paulo Railway Company (1873) LR 8 Ch App 597 at 610. Nor is it to be inferred that Mr Khaled El Sayed and MEA would have been permitted to bring proceedings if they were merely eligible benefici…
[1963] 2 QB 606
[1963] 2 QB 606 Para 66

…following, that the rule might be relaxed. As Upjohn LJ said of it in Boulting v Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians [1963] 2 QB 606 at 636 and 638, the rule is flexible, and “must be applied realistically to a state of affairs which discloses a real conflict of duty and interest and n…
Sharpe v San Paulo Railway Co
(1873) 8 Ch App 597 Para 54

…ces. Courts have long expressed concerns against the prospect of numerous claims being commenced or threatened in such circumstances: see for example Sharpe v San Paulo Railway Company (1873) LR 8 Ch App 597 at 610. Nor is it to be inferred that Mr Khaled El Sayed and MEA would have been permitted to bring proceedings if they were merely e…

Legislation cited in this decision · 1

Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW)
75 2 mentions (from Para 37)

Medium Neutral Citation:	El Sayed v El Hawach [2015] NSWCA 26
Hearing dates:	10 February 2015
Decision date:	26 February 2015
Before:	Beazley P; Gleeson JA; Leeming JA
Decision:	1. Appeal dismissed. 2. Cross-appeal allowed. 3. Order 6 made on 20 December 2013 be set aside. 4. Vary order 7 made on 20 December 2013 by deleting the word “otherwise”. 5. Vary order 8 made on 20 December 2013 by deleting the words “75% of”. 6. Order that the appellants/cross-respondents pay the costs of the respondents/cross-appellants of the appeal and cross-appeal.
Catchwords:	TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES - "discretionary trust" - appointor purported to exercise powers inconsistently - standing - whether eligible beneficiaries of discretionary trust had standing to bring derivative action - where proceedings had been brought against eligible beneficiaries - where eligible beneficiaries claimed to have become trustee and appointor - whether special circumstances established - eligible beneficiaries had standing TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES - fiduciary duties - whether purported appointment of eligible beneficiary who acted as trustee's solicitor as appointor a breach of duty - obligation to consider scope of fiduciary obligations - no breach established
Legislation Cited:	Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 75
Cases Cited:	Alexander v Perpetual Trustees WA Ltd [2004] HCA 7; 216 CLR 109 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Carey [No 6] [2006] FCA 814; 153 FCR 509 Barescape Pty Limited as trustee for The V’s Family Trust & Anor v Bacchus Holdings Pty Limited as trustee for The Bacchus Holdings Trust & Anor (No 9) [2012] NSWSC 984 Beach Petroleum NL v Kennedy [1999] NSWCA 408; 48 NSWLR 1 Boulting v Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians [1963] 2 QB 606 Bray v Ford [1896] AC 44 Chief Commissioner of Stamp Duties (NSW) v Buckle [1998] HCA 4; 192 CLR 226 Deutsch v Deutsch [2012] VSC 227; 6 ASTLR 386 Ex parte Hebburn; Re Kearsley Shire Council (1947) 47 SR (NSW) 416 Highland v Labraga (No 2) [2005] NSWSC 1212 In re Coomber; Coomber v Coomber [1911] 1 Ch 723 In re Skeats’ Settlement (1889) 42 Ch D 522 In the Matter of X (Trust) [2012] JRC 171 Kearns v Hill (1990) 21 NSWLR 107 Lewis v Condon [2013] NSWCA 204; 85 NSWLR 99 Pearson v Commissioner of Taxation [2001] FCA 1427; 116 FCR 357 Rigg v Sheridan [2008] NSWCA 79 Sharpe v San Paulo Railway Company (1873) LR 8 Ch App 597 Warman International Ltd v Dwyer [1995] HCA 18; 182 CLR 544
Texts Cited:	P Finn, Fiduciary Obligations Law Book Company, 1977 G Thomas and A Hudson, The Law of Trusts Oxford University Press, 2nd ed, 2010
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Khaled El Sayed (1st Appellant and 1st Cross-Respondent) M E Asset Investments Pty Ltd (2nd Appellant and 2nd Cross-Respondent) Sayed El Hawach (1st Respondent and 1st Cross-Appellant) Victoria Lahoud (2nd Respondent and 2nd Cross-Appellant) Brady Street Developments Pty Ltd (3rd Respondent)