In the matter of Investa Listed Funds Management Limited as responsible entity for the Armstrong Jones Office Fund and the Prime Credit Property Trust

Investa Listed Funds Management Limited, as the responsible entity for the Armstrong Jones Office Fund and the Prime Credit Property Trust, approached the New South Wales Supreme Court to seek judicial advice under section 63 of the Trustee Act 1925. The dispute centred around whether the responsible entity was justified in distributing a supplementary scheme booklet to unitholders and whether it would be justified in resuming a meeting of unitholders. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate course of action in light of these queries.

The central legal issue before the court was the interpretation and application of section 63 of the Trustee Act 1925. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the responsible entity's requests for judicial advice were legitimate and whether such advice should be provided. This involved an analysis of the statutory framework, the responsibilities of the responsible entity, and the rights and interests of the unitholders.

The court found that the responsible entity had a legitimate basis for seeking judicial advice, as it was acting within the scope of its duties under the Trustee Act. The court reasoned that the responsible entity had a duty to act in the best interests of the unitholders and that seeking judicial advice was a prudent step to ensure compliance with legal obligations. Consequently, the court determined that the advice sought was justified and should be provided. The court's decision underscored the importance of transparency and due diligence in the management of unit trusts.

The final orders of the court were that the responsible entity's requests for judicial advice should be granted, and the court directed the responsible entity to take appropriate steps to distribute the supplementary scheme booklet and resume the meeting of unitholders in accordance with the advice provided.