Legal Research
Cases
Hiralal v Hiralal

Hiralal v Hiralal

Link copied

Case Copied 29 July 2013 71 min read

Contents

On this page

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Vidyagauri Hiralal v Nitin Hiralal & Ors [2013] NSWSC 984
Hearing dates: 23 & 24 August 2012
Decision date: 29 July 2013
Jurisdiction: Equity Division
Before: Slattery J
Decision:
Motion dismissed

Catchwords: EQUITY - trusts and trustees - removal of trustees - recovery of trust assets - proceedings commenced in New South Wales by one of three trustees of a testamentary trust created under will admitted to probate in Fiji - whether New South Wales Supreme Court has jurisdiction to determine the proceedings - whether defendants have been served personally within jurisdiction - whether defendants have been served outside jurisdiction in accordance with UCPR Pt 11 - whether leave to proceed should be given under UCPR Pt 11 - defendants issued subpoenas and filed an unconditional appearance - application for leave to withdraw appearance - whether defendants have submitted to jurisdiction - whether New South Wales is a clearly inappropriate forum for their determination.
Legislation Cited: Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic) s 33
Civil Procedure Act 2001, s 63
Corporations Act 2001 ss 169, 178, 1070A(4)
Probate and Administration Act 1898 (NSW) ss 40, 107
Supreme Court Rules 1970 Pt 10 r 2A, s 81
The Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Trusts and on their Recognition 1984, Articles 6, 7, 21
Trusts (Hague Convention) Act 1991 (Cth) s 6
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2001 r 6.19, r 11.2, 11.3, 11.4, 11.6, 11.7, 12.11, 13.4, Schedule 6 (a), (i), (j), (m), (n), (o), (p) and (u), Part 25
Cases Cited: Australian Olympic Committee Inc v The Big Fights Inc [1999] FCA 1042
Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) v Sweeney (No 2) [2000] NSWSC 1211
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Sweeney (No 2) (2001) 38 ACSR 743; [2001] NSWSC 477
Baldry v Jackson [1976] 1 NSWLR 19
Brealey v Board of Management Royal Perth Hospital [1999] WASCA 158
Brookfield v Davey Products Pty Ltd 25 September 1998, Mansfield J, Federal Court of Australia, unreported
Brougham v Poulett (1855) 19 Beav 119; 52 ER 294
Brown v Holt [1961] VR 435
Burke v Dawes [1938] HCA 6, (1938) 59 CLR 1
Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd v Lissenden (1987) 8 NSWLR 411
Carrick v Hancock (1895) 12 TLR 59
Cash v Nominal Defendant (1969) 90 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 77
Chellaram v Chellaram [1985] Ch 409
CSR Ltd v Cigna Insurance Australia Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 345
Damberg v Damberg (2001) 52 NSWLR 492
Dawson v Perpetual Trustee Co (Ltd) (1953) 89 CLR 138
Easterbrook v Young (1977) 136 CLR 308
Easterbrook v Young [1974] 1 NSWLR 676
Electronic Industries Imports Pty Ltd v Public Curator of Queensland [1960] VR 10
Ex parte The Public Trustee; Re Birch (1951) 52 SR (NSW) 345
Garsec v His Majesty Sultan of Brunei (2007) 213 FLR 331; [2007] NSWSC 882
George Attenborough & Son v Solomon [1913] AC 76
Haque v Haque [No 2] (1965) 114 CLR 98
Hartigan Nominees Pty…

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 Hiralal v Hiralal 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: [2013] NSWSC 984
Decision Date: 29 July 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hiralal v Hiralal involved a dispute among trustees of a testamentary trust established under a will admitted to probate in Fiji. The proceedings were initiated in the Supreme Court of New South Wales by one of the three trustees seeking the removal of the other two trustees and the recovery of trust assets. The defendants, who were served with the proceedings outside the jurisdiction in Fiji, filed an unconditional appearance and later applied for leave to withdraw their appearance. The central legal issues were whether the court had jurisdiction to hear the case, if the defendants had been properly served, and if leave to proceed should be granted under the relevant rules.

The court addressed the jurisdictional issues by examining the service of the proceedings and the defendants' subsequent actions. The defendants were served with the proceedings outside the jurisdiction but filed an unconditional appearance, which the court considered as an indication of submitting to the jurisdiction. Despite the defendants' application to withdraw their appearance, the court determined that they had effectively submitted to the jurisdiction by engaging with the proceedings. Additionally, the court held that New South Wales was not a clearly inappropriate forum for the determination of the dispute, given the connection to the trust and the involvement of one of the trustees from the state.

Consequently, the court ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear the case and granted leave for the proceedings to continue. The defendants' application to withdraw their appearance was dismissed, and the case proceeded as planned. The final orders of the court were that the defendants were required to remain in the case, and the proceedings were allowed to continue, ensuring that the issues regarding the trust and the trustees could be resolved in the appropriate forum.

Orders