Land v Prideland Equity Pty Ltd - [2024] VSC 557

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION
TRUSTS, EQUITY AND PROBATE LIST

S ECI 2024 00353

BETWEEN:

SALLY-ANN LAND	Plaintiff
v
PRIDELAND EQUITY PTY LTD (ACN 005 267 667) as Trustee of the PRIDELAND TRUST	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Barrett AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	1 August 2024
DATE OF RULING:	11 September 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Land v Prideland Equity Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2024] VSC 557

---

EQUITY – Trusts – Application by object of discretionary trust for production of trust documents – Whether plaintiff, as guardian, is entitled to production of trust documents pursuant to the terms of the trust – Whether ‘proprietary approach’ or ‘discretionary approach’ to production otherwise applies: O’ Rourke v Darbishire [1920] AC 581, Deutsch v Trumble (2016) 52 VR 108, Chan v Valmorbida Custodians Pty Ltd [2020] VSC 590; Smorgon v ES Group Operations Pty Ltd (2021) 64 VR 146: Schmidt v Rosewood Trust Ltd [2003] 2 AC 709, Dura (Australia) Constructions Pty Ltd & Anor v SC Land Richmond Pty Ltd [2007] VSC 272, Erceg v Erceg (2017) 1 NZLR 320 considered – Held: Application granted – Plaintiff entitled to production of trust documents pursuant to terms of the trust – Plaintiff also entitled to production of trust documents pursuant to the proprietary approach and, if that does not apply, pursuant to the discretionary approach.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr M Hoyne of counsel	BlueRock Law
For the Defendant	No appearance for the defendant

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Background

Service

Is the plaintiff entitled to trust documents pursuant to the terms of the trust deed?

Is the plaintiff entitled to trust documents pursuant to the ‘proprietary approach’ or the ‘discretionary approach’?

Conclusion

HIS HONOUR:

This in an application by the plaintiff, by Originating Motion filed 30 January 2024, seeking orders that the defendant produce trust accounts and documents of the Prideland Trust. The defendant has not appeared.
The plaintiff relies on the:
(a)affidavit of Sally-Ann Land sworn 29 January 2024;
(b)affidavits of Ms Kathryn Margaret Finemore (‘Ms Finemore’) sworn 6 March 2024, 6 May 2024 and 30 July 2024;
(c)affidavit of Ameera Shah affirmed 30 July 2024; and
(d)written submissions filed 16 May 2024.

Background

The Prideland Trust was established by Deed on 27 March 1997. The defendant is the trustee of the Prideland Trust. The plaintiff's ex-husband, Mr David Land (‘Mr Land’) is the sole shareholder and director of the defendant. The plaintiff and Mr Land are beneficiaries of the trust and are joint Guardians and Appointors. Other family members and associated entities are also named as beneficiaries. The trust property includes several properties including a number of rural properties that are used for farming.
On 1 February 2013, the plaintiff and Mr Land entered into a Binding Financial Agreement (‘BFA’) setting out the terms of their separation. The BFA does provide for a degree of separation…

Grounds of appeal

[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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Land v Prideland Equity Pty Ltd 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: [2024] VSC 557
Decision Date: 11 September 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Land applied for the production of documents related to a discretionary trust, with the application being opposed by Prideland Equity. The application was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the plaintiff, as the guardian of the objects of the discretionary trust, was entitled to the production of trust documents in accordance with the terms of the trust. Additionally, the Court needed to determine whether the proprietary approach or the discretionary approach to production applied in this case.

The Court found that the plaintiff was entitled to the production of trust documents pursuant to the terms of the trust. It was held that the proprietary approach applied, meaning the plaintiff had an entitlement to the documents as the guardian of the objects. However, if the proprietary approach did not apply, the Court also found that the discretionary approach applied, and the plaintiff would still be entitled to the production of trust documents. The Court’s reasoning was informed by cases such as O’ Rourke v Darbishire, Deutsch v Trumble, Chan v Valmorbida Custodians Pty Ltd, Smorgon v ES Group Operations Pty Ltd, Schmidt v Rosewood Trust Ltd, Dura (Australia) Constructions Pty Ltd & Anor v SC Land Richmond Pty Ltd, and Erceg v Erceg.

The Court granted the application for the production of trust documents. It was determined that the plaintiff, as the guardian of the objects of the discretionary trust, was entitled to the production of trust documents in accordance with the terms of the trust. Furthermore, the Court found that the proprietary approach applied, and if it did not, the discretionary approach would also apply, entitling the plaintiff to the production of trust documents.

The final orders of the Court were that the defendant, Prideland Equity, was to produce the trust documents to the plaintiff, Land, within 14 days of the judgment.

Orders