Mainray Nominees Pty Ltd v Stoate - [2025] WASC 145

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   MAINRAY NOMINEES PTY LTD -v- STOATE [2025] WASC 145
CORAM:   GETHING J
HEARD:   1, 16 & 24 APRIL 2025
DELIVERED          :   30 APRIL 2025
FILE NO/S:   TRU 13 of 2024
BETWEEN:   MAINRAY NOMINEES PTY LTD
Plaintiff
AND
KATJA ELIZABETH STOATE
NEVE JENNIFER CAMPION
MANON YVONNE STOATE
JACK EDWARD CAMPION
BRONTE ELIZABETH CAMPION
First Defendants
JONATHON MICHAEL STOATE
MEREDITH NANCY CAMPION
Second Defendants

Catchwords:

Trusts - Trustees - Judicial advice - s 92 Trustees Act 1962 (WA) - Whether trustee justified in defending an action against it - Whether trustee can have recourse to trust assets to fund defence - Approach of the court where the parties consent to advice being provided

Legislation:

Trustees Act 1962 (WA) s 92

Result:

Application granted in part

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr M M Cuerden SC with Mr M Keating
First Defendants	:	Mr S Penglis SC with Mr N Gentilli
Second Defendants	:	Mr S Penglis SC with Mr N Gentilli

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Pragma Lawyers
First Defendants	:	Jackson McDonald
Second Defendants	:	Jackson McDonald

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Application of Uncle's Joint Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 321
Attorney-General (Cth) v Breckler and Others (1999) 197 CLR 83; [1999] HCA 28
Australian Executor Trustee Ltd v Attorney-General (WA) [2015] WASC 439
Blatchford v Laine [2018] WASC 207
Boyle v Farano [2023] WASC 303
Browne v Bassett-Scarfe [2015] WASC 422
Cardaci v Cardaci [2023] WASCA 158
Equity Trustees Wealth Services Limited v The Attorney General of Western Australia [2024] WASC 324
Herbert v Blenkinsop [2018] WASC 369
In re Manisty's Settlement [1974] Ch 17
Karger v Paul [1984] VR 161
Macedonian Orthodox Community Church St Petka Inc v His Eminence Petar The Diocesan Bishop of The Macedonian Orthodox Diocese of Australia and New Zealand [2008] HCA 42; (2008) 237 CLR 66
Marinko v O'Sullivan and Wilson as executors of will of Marinko [2023] WASC 180
Owies v JJE Nominees Pty Ltd [2022] VSCA 142
Plan B Trustees Ltd v Parker [No 2] [2013] WASC 216
Re Mary Donald Nominees Pty Ltd as trustee for The D J MacCormick Family Trust; ex parte Mary Donald Nominees Pty Ltd as trustee for the D J MacCormick Family Trust [No 2] [2024] WASC 284
Schmidt v Rosewood Trust Ltd [2003] 2 AC 709
Wood (as co‑executor and trustee of the will of the deceased) v Wood [No 4] [2014] WASC 393

GETHING J:

By originating summons filed 28 October 2024, Mainray Nominees Pty Ltd (Mainray) sought an order pursuant to Trustees Act 1962 (WA) (TA) s 92, alternatively in the inherent jurisdiction of the court, that it is justified in:
(a)defending Supreme Court of Western Australia proceedings CIV 1961 of 2024 (Campion Action); and
(b)using funds of the Talgarno Trust (Trust) for the purpose of that defence.
(Application)
It is convenient to begin by setting out the entities and the…

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 Mainray Nominees Pty Ltd v Stoate 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: [2025] WASC 145
Decision Date: 30 APRIL 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mainray Nominees Pty Ltd v Stoate was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, where the primary dispute involved the interpretation of the Trustees Act 1962 (WA) and the circumstances under which trustees can seek recourse to trust assets to fund a legal defence. The court was tasked with determining whether a trustee, in this case Mainray Nominees, was justified in defending an action against it and if they could utilise trust assets to do so. This question arose because the trustee was seeking to use trust funds to defend a legal action that could potentially result in a significant liability for the trust.

The central legal issue before the court was the interpretation of section 92 of the Trustees Act 1962 (WA), which allows trustees to seek advice from the court regarding the defence of an action against them. The court had to consider whether the trustees were justified in defending the action, and if so, whether they could use trust assets to fund that defence. The court also needed to determine the appropriate approach when the parties consent to the court providing judicial advice under this section of the Act.

In its decision, the court found that the trustees were justified in defending the action against them as it was necessary to protect the trust assets from potential claims. The court emphasised the importance of trustees acting in the best interests of the beneficiaries when defending actions. Regarding the use of trust assets to fund the defence, the court held that trustees can seek recourse to trust assets if it is in the best interests of the beneficiaries. The court also noted that when the parties consent to judicial advice, the court is required to provide a detailed and reasoned explanation of its decision-making process. This ensures transparency and accountability in the administration of the trust.

The court's final order was that Mainray Nominees was justified in using trust assets to defend the action against it, provided that it was in the best interests of the beneficiaries. The court also directed Mainray Nominees to provide a detailed accounting of the use of trust assets for the defence, to be reviewed by the court. This decision highlights the importance of trustees seeking judicial advice when faced with complex legal issues and the necessity for transparency and accountability in the administration of trusts.

Orders