(1) Orders that by 5 February 2021, the Defendants are to permit the Plaintiffs, by their legal representatives, to inspect a copy of:
(a) The Trust Deed, dated 1 June 2006, establishing the Goldsprings Family Trust;
(b) The Deed of Variation, dated 30 June 2008, relating to the Goldsprings Family Trust;
(c) The Trust Deed, of date unknown, establishing the Fred Goldspring & Sons Family Trust; and
(d) Any other Deed of Variation, dated between 1 June 2006 and the date of these orders, which had the effect of varying the terms of either the Goldsprings Family Trust or the Fred Goldspring & Sons Family Trust.
(2) Stands over the balance of the proceedings to 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, 18 February 2021, for the purpose of determining whether any further orders are necessary and to consider how the question of costs should be determined.
Catchwords:
EQUITY – Trusts and trustees – Where the Plaintiffs do not know whether they are beneficiaries or discretionary objects, or whether they are within a class of beneficiaries or discretionary objects, or whether they have an interest in the property subject to trusts – Doubtful beneficiaries – Whether entitled to access to trust documents – Where the Defendants read no evidence on the application for access to documents – Whether inferences should be drawn from the failure to give evidence – Whether Plaintiffs’ evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case – Whether Plaintiffs entitled to access documents.
Macedonian Orthodox Community Church St Petka Incorporated v His Eminence Petar the Diocesan Bishop of the Macedonian Orthodox Diocese of Australia and New Zealand (2008) 237 CLR 66; [2008] HCA 42
[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 Jordan v Goldspring
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Jordan v Goldspring [2021] NSWSC 7
Case
[2021] NSWSC 7
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Jordan v Goldspring involved the Plaintiffs, who sought access to trust documents from the Defendants, who were the trustees of certain trusts. The Plaintiffs were uncertain whether they were beneficiaries or discretionary objects of the trusts, or whether they had an interest in the property subject to the trusts. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central legal issues revolved around whether the Plaintiffs, as doubtful beneficiaries, were entitled to access the trust documents. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the Defendants' failure to present any evidence on the application warranted drawing any inferences, and whether the Plaintiffs' evidence was sufficient to establish a prima facie case for access to the documents.
The court examined the nature of the Plaintiffs' interest in the trusts and whether their uncertainty about their status as beneficiaries or discretionary objects entitled them to seek access to the trust documents. It was noted that the Defendants did not provide any evidence during the application, which the court considered in light of the Plaintiffs' unrebutted evidence. The court found that the Plaintiffs' evidence was sufficient to establish a prima facie case for access to the trust documents, given their status as doubtful beneficiaries. The court held that the Defendants' failure to present evidence did not warrant drawing any adverse inferences against them. Consequently, the Plaintiffs were entitled to access the trust documents.
The Supreme Court of Queensland ruled in favour of the Plaintiffs, granting them access to the trust documents. This decision was based on the Plaintiffs' status as doubtful beneficiaries and the sufficiency of their evidence to establish a prima facie case for access. The court did not draw any inferences from the Defendants' failure to present evidence on the application. The final orders of the court were that the Plaintiffs were entitled to access the trust documents, subject to any applicable confidentiality provisions.