Legal Research
Cases
McDonald v Ellis

McDonald v Ellis

Case [2007] NSWSC 1068 27 September 2007

Account of Profits

Equitable Estoppel

Authority of Precedent

Trusts & Equity

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
72 NSWLR 605

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: McDONALD v ELLIS [2007] NSWSC 1068
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 05/09/2007

JUDGMENT DATE :
27 September 2007

JURISDICTION: EQUITY

JUDGMENT OF: Bryson AJ at 1

DECISION: (1) Direct pursuant to UCPR10.14 that the Summons be taken to have been served on the first defendant on 11 July 2006 being the date of the second defendant’s appearance; (2) Order pursuant to UCPR 7.10 that the second defendant be appointed to represent the persons other than the plaintiff interested in the trusts of the will of the late Harold Wilfred Wills Baker; (3) Order that the second defendant forthwith provide to the plaintiff accounts for the years ended 30 June 1998 to 30 June 2005 of all moneys received and disbursed by him and by the first and second defendants or on behalf of him or them in respect of the assets of the trust established by Will of Harold Wilfred Wills Baker ; (4) Liberty to apply with respect to the production of trust documents and with respect to the claims in the Summons; (5) Order that the second defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings.

CATCHWORDS: TRUSTS and TRUSTEES - accounts - entitlement of beneficiaries to accounts and to see trust documents - authority of Schmidt v Rosewood Trust [2003] 2 AC 709 doubted. Trustee resisted beneficiary's claim for accounts and information, asserting confidentiality of income to life tenant - order for accounts.

CASES CITED: Avanes v Marshall [2007] NSWSC 191
Cook v Cook (1986) 162 CLR 376
Hartigan Nominees Pty Ltd v Rydge (1992) 29 NSWLR 405
Havyn Pty Ltd v Webster [2005] NSWCA 182
In re Arbitration between Parry and Hopkin [1900] 1 Ch 160
In re Armstrong [1899] SALR 155
In re Dartnall, Sawyer v Goddard [1895] 1 Ch 474
In re Londonderry’s Settlement, Peat v Walsh [1965] 1 Ch 918
In re Tillott, Lee v Wilson [1892] 1 Ch 86
Lehmann v Haskard (SCNSW Young J 29 August 1996 unreported)
O’Rourke v Darbishire [1920] AC 581
Randall v Lubrano (SCNSW Holland J 31 October 1975 unreported)
Roberts v Roberts (1915) 16 SR NSW 6
Schmidt v Rosewood Trust Ltd [2003] 2 AC 709
Spellson v George (1987) 11 NSWLR 300
Walker v Symonds (1818) 3 Swanston 1, 36 ER 751
Watson v Little (1921) 38 WN NSW 143
Wilkie v Equity Trustees Executors and Agency Co. Ltd [1909] VLR 277

PARTIES: Narelle Marie McDonald - Plaintiff
Roxane Marie Ellis - 1st Defendant
John Baker Ellis - 2nd Defendant

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 1191/2006

COUNSEL: R. Winfield - Plaintiff
N/A - 1st Defendant
S.A. Sirtes - 2nd Defendant

SOLICITORS: Northside Law - Plaintiff
N/A - 1st Defendant
Teece Hodgson & Ward - 2nd Defendant

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

BRYSON AJ

27 September 2007

1191/06 Narelle Marie McDONALD v Roxane Marie ELLIS and…

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 McDonald v Ellis

Details

AGLC: McDonald v Ellis [2007] NSWSC 1068
Case: [2007] NSWSC 1068
Decision Date: 27 September 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of McDonald v Ellis, the High Court of Australia was called upon to consider the rights of beneficiaries to access accounts and trust documents. The dispute arose between the trustees of a family trust and certain beneficiaries who sought to review the trust’s financial records and other related documents. The court was tasked with determining the extent to which beneficiaries are entitled to such information and whether the trustees' resistance on the grounds of confidentiality could be justified.

The central legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the principles established in Schmidt v Rosewood Trust [2003] 2 AC 709. The trustees argued that disclosing the accounts and documents would breach the confidentiality owed to the life tenant. They contended that the beneficiary’s right to access information was not absolute and should be balanced against the need for confidentiality. The beneficiaries, on the other hand, asserted that the principles in Schmidt v Rosewood Trust required trustees to provide them with the necessary information to understand the administration of the trust.

The High Court, in its decision, closely examined the authority of Schmidt v Rosewood Trust and the established principles governing the disclosure of trust information. The court acknowledged the importance of confidentiality in trust administration but ultimately found that the beneficiaries' entitlement to accounts and access to trust documents outweighed the trustees' concerns. The court held that the trustees were required to provide the beneficiaries with the requested information, emphasising that the right to such information is fundamental to ensuring proper trust administration and accountability.

Consequently, the court ordered the trustees to provide the beneficiaries with the necessary accounts and documents, thereby affirming the beneficiaries' rights under trust law. The decision underscores the importance of transparency and accountability in the administration of trusts, reaffirming the beneficiaries' entitlement to information as a cornerstone of trust law.

Orders