L N v Public Trustee for the Act

Link copied
Case Copied 38 min read

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

L N v Public Trustee for the ACT

Citation:

[2014] ACTSC 190

Hearing Date(s):

4 August 2014

DecisionDate:

8 August 2014

Before:

Mossop M

Decision:

See [70]

Category:

Principal Judgment

Catchwords:

TRUSTS – where a person under a disability at the time of a settlement of proceedings, who has had the proceeds of judgment paid to a trustee, has sought termination of the trust on the basis that the person was no longer under a disability – jurisdiction to be exercised – rule in Saunders v Vautier – parens patriae jurisdiction – Trustee Act 1925 (ACT) s 71 – whether plaintiff is in a position to give a good discharge to the trustee and is capable of managing the funds currently held in trust in a manner which makes it appropriate that she have that property and those funds invested in her

Legislation Cited:

Public Trustee Act 1985 (ACT)

Trustee Act 1925 (ACT)

Cases Cited:

Cadwallender v Public Trustee [2003] WASC 72

Erdogan v Ekici (2012) 36 VR 579
Gibbons v Wright (1954) 91 CLR 423
Guthrie v Spence (2009) 78 NSWLR 225
Naso v Cottrell [2001] WADC 7
Newton v The Public Trustee [1999] WASC 179
Newton v The Public Trustee [2000] WASC 118
Perpetual Trustees (WA) Limited v Naso (1999) 21 WAR 191
Public Trustee v Thompson (2000) 155 FLR 18
PY v RJS [1982] 2 NSWLR 700
Saunders v Vautier (1841) 4 Beav 115; 49 ER 282
Singh v Calvary Hospital [No  2] (2009) 3 ACTLR 247

Texts Cited:

Roger Bird, Osborn’s Concise Law Dictionary (Sweet & Maxwell, 7th ed, 1983)

Parties:

L N (Plaintiff)

Public Trustee for the Australian Capital Territory (Defendant)

Representation:

Counsel:

Mr R Thomas (Plaintiff)

Mr W Andrews (Defendant)

Solicitors:

Capon & Hubert Lawyers & Mediators (Plaintiff)

Sneddon Hall & Gallop (Defendant)

File Number(s):

SC 328 of 2014

The Originating Application

  1. By amended originating application, the plaintiff who I will refer to as “L N” by her litigation guardian, who I will refer to as “H N” seeks orders that:

1.Pursuant to s 70 of the Trustee Act 1925 the trust created by order of the ACT Supreme Court, proceedings 670 of 1998 be terminated and the following consequential orders made.

2.The corpus and capital of the trust referred to in order 1 vest in the Applicant [L N].

3.1 It is hereby declared that the respondent holds the legal title to the property at 27 Deloraine Street Lyons otherwise described in the Land Titles Office as Block 20 Section 4 Lyons, Certificate of Title Volume 865 Folio 95 on behalf of the Applicant [L N].

3.2. The Respondent transfer the home of [L N] namely the property at 27 Deloraine Street, Lyons in the Australian Capital Territory into the applicants name as the party holding the beneficial interest in the property.

  1. The Public Trustee, the current trustee of the amount paid pursuant to the judgment, took, in effect, a neutral stance…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read L N v Public Trustee for the Act and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2014] ACTSC 190
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of L N versus the Public Trustee for the Australian Capital Territory, the plaintiff, L N, sought the termination of a trust. L N had been under a disability at the time of the settlement of proceedings and had had the proceeds of judgment paid to a trustee. The primary contention was whether L N, who was no longer under a disability, was entitled to the termination of the trust, arguing that she was now capable of managing the funds held in trust. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff could provide a valid discharge to the trustee and whether it was appropriate for her to currently manage the funds held in trust.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the applicability of the rule in Saunders v Vautier, which permits beneficiaries under a disability to petition for the termination of a trust once they reach majority or are no longer under a disability. Additionally, the court considered the Public Trustee's parens patriae jurisdiction under section 71 of the Trustee Act 1925 (ACT). The central question was whether L N was in a position to provide a good discharge to the trustee and whether she was capable of managing the funds in a manner that justified the trust's termination.

The court deliberated on the evidence presented regarding L N's capacity to manage her funds and concluded that she had demonstrated sufficient capability to warrant the trust's termination. The court found that L N was not only able to give a good discharge to the trustee but also that it was appropriate for her to manage the funds currently held in trust. Consequently, the court exercised its jurisdiction under section 71 of the Trustee Act 1925 (ACT), ruling in favour of the plaintiff's application to terminate the trust.

The final orders of the court were detailed in paragraph [70], wherein it was ordered that the trust be terminated, and the funds held in trust be transferred to L N. The court determined that L N was capable of managing the funds in a manner that made it appropriate for her to have those funds invested in her.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [70]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.