Kanjian v Kanjian

Case

[2019] NSWSC 166

25 February 2019


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Kanjian v Kanjian [2019] NSWSC 166 [2019] NSWSC 166 25 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Kanjian v Kanjian involved a dispute between the parties over a share in a corporate trustee company. The parties were in deadlock regarding the management of the trust property, and the court was asked to appoint receivers and managers to oversee the trust property. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues before the court were whether the court had the jurisdiction to appoint receivers and managers of the trust property in the circumstances, and whether it was appropriate to do so. The court considered the relevant statutory provisions and case law in determining the appropriate course of action.

The court found that it did have the jurisdiction to appoint receivers and managers in the circumstances, as the deadlock between the parties had resulted in the inability to manage the trust property effectively. The court also found that it was appropriate to appoint receivers and managers to ensure the protection of the trust property and the interests of the beneficiaries. The court noted that the appointment of receivers and managers was a last resort, and that the court would prefer to see the parties resolve their dispute through other means where possible.

The court made orders appointing receivers and managers of the trust property, and directed the parties to cooperate with them in the management of the property. The court also made orders for the parties to provide information and documents to the receivers and managers, and to attend meetings as required. The court noted that the orders were without prejudice to any other proceedings that the parties may wish to bring.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Trusts & Equity

Legal Concepts

  • Fiduciary Duty

  • Constructive Trust

  • Appointment of Receivers and Managers

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

10

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

1