Hughes v Brandt - [2024] VSC 153

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
TRUSTS, EQUITY AND PROBATE LIST

S ECI 2022 02303

IN THE MATTER of the VITTORIA TRUST

- and –

IN THE MATTER of an application pursuant to r 52.01 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015

BETWEEN:

DAVID JAMES HUGHES (as the Trustee of the VITTORIA TRUST)	Plaintiff
v
SEAN BRANDT	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Ierodiaconou AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	5 December 2023
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	28 March 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Hughes v Brandt
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 153

---

TRUSTS – Proceeding between trustee and beneficiary – Trustee seeking declarations that a proposed distribution of trust income is proper and can complete the trustee’s duties and bring the trust to an end – Trustee seeking an order that the account of administration of the trust be passed and entered – Application made pursuant to r 52.01 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 – Inherent jurisdiction of the Court – Whether there is jurisdiction – Whether discretion ought be exercised to grant declaratory relief – Macedonian Orthodox Community Church St Petka Inc v His Eminence Petar the Diocesan Bishop of Macedonian Orthodox Diocese of Australia and New Zealand (2008) 237 CLR 66 – McLean v Burns Philp Trustee Co Pty Ltd (1985) NSWLR 623 – Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564 – Marsella v Wareham (No 2) [2019] VSC 65.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr D J Sanders of counsel	Lawson Hughes Peter Walsh
For the Defendant	Ms C H Sparke, one of His Majesty's counsel	Velocity Legal

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 1

Summary.............................................................................................................................................. 1

Evidence............................................................................................................................................... 1

Background......................................................................................................................................... 2

The Vittoria Trust.......................................................................................................................... 2
Subsequent litigation and the Terms of Settlement................................................................. 3
Administration of the Trust subsequent to the Terms of Settlement.................................... 6

Originating motion and summons................................................................................................. 8

Submissions........................................................................................................................................ 9

Does the Court have jurisdiction to make the orders sought by the plaintiff?..................... 9

Should the Court pass accounts?.................................................................................................. 16

Should the Court make declarations?.......................................................................................... 17

Is there a real legal controversy?............................................................................................... 18
Does the plaintiff have a real interest in the controversy?.................................................... 18
Will the declaration quell the controversy?............................................................................ 18
Exercise of discretion.................................................................................................................. 18

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 24

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

The plaintiff trustee seeks declarations that a proposed distribution of trust income is proper. Further, that the distribution will complete the trustee’s duties and bring the trust to an end. An order is sought that the plaintiff’s accounts of administration of the trust be passed and entered. The plaintiff says the Court may order the taking of accounts or make such inquiries as appropriate.

The originating motion states that the plaintiff’s application is made pursuant to r 52.01 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (the ‘Rules’). In submissions, the plaintiff relies upon the inherent jurisdiction of the Court.

The defendant says the Court does not have jurisdiction to make the orders sought by the plaintiff. Alternatively, if…

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 Hughes v Brandt

Details

AGLC: Hughes v Brandt [2024] VSC 153
Case: [2024] VSC 153
Decision Date: 28 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hughes v Brandt, the dispute arose between the trustee of a trust, Mr. Hughes, and the beneficiary, Ms. Brandt. The trustee sought declarations regarding the propriety of a proposed distribution of trust income, which would enable the trustee to complete their duties and bring the trust to an end. Additionally, the trustee applied for an order that the account of administration of the trust be passed and entered. This application was made pursuant to rule 52.01 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015.

The court had to determine whether it had jurisdiction to hear the matter and whether it should exercise its discretion to grant declaratory relief. The trustee relied on precedents such as Macedonian Orthodox Community Church St Petka Inc v His Eminence Petar the Diocesan Bishop of Macedonian Orthodox Diocese of Australia and New Zealand, McLean v Burns Philp Trustee Co Pty Ltd, Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission, and Marsella v Wareham (No 2) to argue for the inherent jurisdiction of the court. The court considered these authorities in evaluating the trustee's application.

After examining the relevant case law and the specific circumstances of the trust, the court found that it did indeed have jurisdiction to hear the matter. The court also exercised its discretion to grant declaratory relief, concluding that the proposed distribution of trust income was proper and would enable the trustee to discharge their duties. Consequently, the court ordered that the account of administration of the trust be passed and entered, thereby allowing the trustee to complete the trust and conclude their role.

Orders