FGH v NOP

The case of FGH v NOP involved a dispute between the parties regarding the interpretation of sections 6 and 13 of the Trustee Act. The dispute came before the court to determine whether the court had the power to make a provision for a class fund under section 13, or whether it was limited to making separate provisions under section 6. The court was required to decide whether the principle of statutory construction that limits a general power when a special power is available applied in this case.

The court considered the principles of statutory construction, particularly the principle that a general power is limited by a special power if the two provisions are with respect to the same subject matter. The court found that the two provisions did not have the same subject matter, as section 13 empowered the court to make an order providing for a class fund for the benefit of two or more successful applicants, while section 6 empowered the court to make separate provisions for each successful applicant. The court concluded that section 13 did not reveal an intention to limit or confine the amplitude of the power conferred by section 6.

Accordingly, the court held that the principle of statutory construction did not apply in this case, and the court had the power to make a provision for a class fund under section 13, in addition to making separate provisions for each successful applicant under section 6. The court did not make any specific orders in this case.

This case highlights the importance of considering the subject matter of the provisions in question when determining whether the principle of statutory construction applies. In this case, the court found that the two provisions did not have the same subject matter, and therefore the principle did not apply. This case will be of interest to lawyers and trustees who are involved in cases involving the interpretation of provisions in the Trustee Act.