Irwin v Pamplin & Ors (No 4)

The case of Irwin v Pamplin & Ors (No 4) involved a dispute between siblings regarding the ownership and control of assets and businesses transferred to their parents. The siblings argued that the transfer was intended to create an express trust or a common intention constructive trust, whereby their parents held the assets and shares in a fiduciary capacity for their benefit. The siblings continued to operate the businesses, asserting that their parents were holding the assets on trust for them. The court also had to determine whether the doctrine of part performance could apply to an oral declaration of trust under the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW).

The central legal issues were whether there was an express trust or a common intention constructive trust in place, and whether the parents could exercise their power of appointment in a manner contrary to their representations to the siblings. The court needed to decide if the statute of frauds was satisfied by part performance in relation to the oral declaration of trust, and if the parents were estopped from exercising their power of appointment in a way that deviated from their prior representations.

The court found that there was indeed an express trust in place, based on the clear intention of the parties involved. The court also found that the common intention constructive trust was applicable due to the shared understanding that the parents would hold the assets and shares for the benefit of the siblings. The court held that part performance could be invoked to satisfy the requirements of the statute of frauds in relation to the oral declaration of trust. Furthermore, the court ruled that the parents were estopped from exercising their power of appointment in a manner that conflicted with their representations to the siblings, thereby breaching the non-fettering principle.

The final orders of the court were that the parents were to hold the assets and shares on trust for the siblings, and that they were not permitted to exercise their power of appointment in any way other than in accordance with their prior representations. The court also ordered that the siblings were to receive equitable compensation for their continued operation of the businesses.