Legal Research
Cases
Martyniuk v King

Martyniuk v King

Case [2000] VSC 319 14 August 2000

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION	Not Restricted

No. 7115 of 1999

VLADYMIR MARTYNIUK	Plaintiff
v
CECIL KING AND OTHERS	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Warren J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27 July 2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	14 August 2000
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Martyniuk v King & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSC 319

---

Receiver – appointment of receiver of trust assets and undertakings – discretionary trust - corporate trustee – Unit holders in dispute – ongoing litigation whether trust assets in disarray or at risk – powers of receiver.

Supreme Court Act 1986, s.37

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr D. Marquet	Corrs Chambers Westgarth
For the 1^st Defendant	Mr P. Riches	Mahonys Solicitors
For the 2^nd Defendant	Mr P.M. Bornstein	Efron & Associates
For the 3^rd Defendant	Mr M. Bevan-John	Peter S. Lustig

HER HONOUR:

The second defendant seeks the appointment of a receiver on an interlocutory basis of the third defendant pursuant to s.1323 of the Corporations Law, and s.37 of the Supreme Court Act 1986 alternatively pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the court.

The plaintiff ("Martyniuk"), the first defendant ("King") and the second defendant ("lllawong Retirement Living") are currently each owners of one third of the units in the Watts Castlecrown Unit Trust (the "trust"). The third defendant ("lllawong Retirement Equity") is the trustee of the Trust. The application for the appointment for a receiver was opposed by Martyniuk but supported by Illawong Retirement Equity. King adopted a non-aligned position of abiding by the decision of the court.

Martyniuk alleges that in December 1997, King agreed to sell and Martyniuk agreed to purchase King's units in the trust for the sum of $525,000 (the "agreement"). Martyniuk alleges that there were terms of the agreement that:

(a) the payment of the purchase price was conditional upon registration of the transfer of the units by the trustee of the Trust; and

(b) pending the registration of the transfer, King would do all things necessary to enable Martyniuk to obtain the benefit of the agreement including providing Martyniuk with a proxy to vote in Trust matters.

Martyniuk alleges also that King and Illawong Retirement Living consented to the sale of the units from King to Martyniuk. Martyniuk claims that subsequently in June 1998, King evinced an intention that he would not transfer the units to Martyniuk and revoked the proxy and King and Illawong Retirement Living denied that they agreed to the transfer of the units from King to Martyniuk. As a consequence Martyniuk seeks specific performance of the agreement and an injunction restraining the defendants from selling, transferring or registering any sale of King's units otherwise than in accordance with the agreement. Martyniuk also sought an interlocutory injunction to this effect.

On 1 November 1999, Beach J ordered that the defendants be restrained until the hearing and determination of the proceeding or further order from selling or transferring and/or completing any sale and/or registration of any…

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.

Continue reading Martyniuk v King

Details

AGLC: Martyniuk v King [2000] VSC 319
Case: [2000] VSC 319
Decision Date: 14 August 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Martyniuk v King, the parties involved are Martyniuk, the liquidator of a corporate trustee, and King, a unit holder in a discretionary trust. The dispute concerns the appointment of a receiver of trust assets and the associated undertakings. This case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary issue before the court was whether the receiver had the authority to take specific actions, such as selling trust assets, in light of ongoing litigation and concerns about the trust's assets being in disarray or at risk. The court was required to interpret the relevant provisions of the Supreme Court Act 1986 and assess the receiver's powers under the circumstances presented.

The court considered the statutory framework provided by the Supreme Court Act 1986, particularly section 37, which grants the court discretion to appoint a receiver over trust assets. The central question was whether the receiver's powers extended to actions that might significantly impact the trust's assets, such as sales, during the period of ongoing litigation. The court needed to balance the interests of the unit holders, who were in dispute, with the potential need to protect and manage the trust's assets effectively.

After a thorough analysis of the statutory provisions and the specific facts of the case, the court determined that the receiver's powers were indeed broad enough to allow for the actions in question, provided they were necessary to protect the trust's assets. The court found that the receiver's actions were justified in the context of the ongoing litigation and the risk to the trust's assets. This decision was made to ensure that the trust's interests were safeguarded while the litigation proceeded.

The final orders of the court confirmed the receiver's authority to proceed with the actions deemed necessary to protect the trust assets. The court emphasised the importance of balancing the rights of unit holders with the need to maintain the integrity and value of the trust's assets during the period of litigation. This decision provides a clear framework for the receiver's actions in similar future cases involving discretionary trusts and ongoing disputes among unit holders.

Orders