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

In this case, the respondent, Investa Listed Funds Management Limited, sought judicial advice as the responsible entity for two managed investments, the Armstrong Jones Office Fund and the Prime Credit Property Trust. The application was made under section 63 of the Trustee Act 1925 (NSW), requesting guidance on whether it would be justified to adjourn a meeting of unitholders. The central issue before the court was whether the advice sought was appropriate and whether the court should provide the requested judicial advice.

The court considered whether the circumstances warranted the adjournment of the meeting of unitholders. It examined the statutory framework provided by the Trustee Act 1925 (NSW) and the principles guiding the responsible entity in managing the funds. The court needed to assess whether the request for advice was in the best interests of the unitholders and aligned with the statutory duties of the responsible entity. In making its decision, the court also took into account any relevant precedents and the specific details of the case.

After careful consideration of the arguments presented and the relevant legal principles, the court determined that it was appropriate to provide the requested judicial advice. The court found that the circumstances did warrant the adjournment of the meeting of unitholders, considering the complexities involved and the need for adequate time to address the issues properly. The court's decision was grounded in the statutory obligations of the responsible entity and the need to ensure the best interests of the unitholders were safeguarded.

The court granted the requested judicial advice, confirming that it would be justified for the responsible entity to adjourn the meeting of unitholders. This decision was intended to provide clarity and guidance to the responsible entity in managing the affairs of the funds effectively. The court's ruling aimed to balance the statutory duties of the responsible entity with the interests of the unitholders, ensuring that any actions taken were lawful and in the best interests of all parties involved.