McKnight v Ice Skating Queensland (Inc) - [2007] QSC 273

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

McKnight & Anor v Ice Skating Queensland (Inc) [2007] QSC 273

PARTIES:

DONALD McKNIGHT and COLIN EDWARD JACKSON AS TRUSTEES OF THE ICE SKATING ASSOCIATION OF QUEENSLAND NO. 1 TRUST
(applicants)
v
ICE SKATING QUEENSLAND (INCORPORATED)
(respondent)

FILE NO:

7211 of 2007

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

26 September 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 September 2007

JUDGE:

Chesterman J

ORDER:

1. The applicants are directed to make their claim for reimbursement for the performance of their duties within two weeks;
2. The applicants may retain under their control an amount sufficient to meet their claim for remuneration and are directed to transfer the balance of the trust estate to the respondent;
3. The application should be otherwise dismissed;
4. Liberty to apply

CATCHWORDS:

EQUITY – TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES – PURPOSE TRUSTS – CONSTRUCTION OF TRUST DEED - TRUST PROPERTY – TERMINATION – RIGHTS OF BENEFICARIES - where the respondent is an incorporated association whose objects are the promotion and carrying on of ice skating – where the respondent created a trust for the purpose of erecting and operating ice rinks - where the applicants are the trustees of that trust - where the trust deed provided for the vesting of the trust property in the respondent on the eightieth anniversary of the trust’s inception - where the trustees purchased two properties for development into ice rinks – where those properties were transferred to the respondent upon the respondent’s incorporation and leased back to the applicants – where some time later the respondent demanded a transfer to it of the leases thereby terminating the trust – where the applicants sought a declaration that the trust was valid and subsisting – whether the respondent was the sole beneficiary of the trust entitled to beneficial ownership of the trust property – whether the trust deed created two trusts one a purpose trust and one a trust for the respondent of the remainder of the properties - whether the notice of termination was valid

EQUITY – TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES RIGHTS OF TRUSTEES – REMUNERATION – INDEMNITY EFFECT ON TRUST ESTATE - where the trustees were entitled to claim inter alia remuneration from the proceeds of the trust property - where at the time of the purported termination the applicants claim substantial sums by way of remuneration for the performance of their duties – where the applicants are yet to determine the value of that claim – where this claim results in a right of indemnification from the trust estate – where until that indemnity is satisfied it would not be possible to say what the trust fund is - whether the claim affected the respondent’s right to call for the conveyance of the whole of the trust estate from the applicants

Chief Commissioner of Stamp Duties for New South Wales v Buckle & Ors (1998) 192 CLR 226, applied
Kemtron Industries Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Stamp Duties [1984]…

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 McKnight v Ice Skating Queensland (Inc) 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: [2007] QSC 273
Decision Date: 27 September 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, the trustees of the trust, sought a declaration that the trust created by the respondent, Ice Skating Queensland (Inc), was valid and subsisting. The trust deed specified that the trust property would vest in the respondent upon the eightieth anniversary of the trust’s inception. The trustees purchased properties intended for ice rinks, which were subsequently transferred to the respondent and leased back to the trustees. The respondent later demanded the transfer of the leases, asserting that this act terminated the trust. The applicants contested this, arguing that they were the rightful trustees and that the trust was still in effect.

The court was required to determine whether the respondent was the sole beneficiary of the trust, entitled to the beneficial ownership of the trust property. Another issue was whether the trust deed created two separate trusts: a purpose trust and a trust for the respondent concerning the remainder of the properties. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the notice of termination issued by the respondent was valid and enforceable.

The court found that the trust deed did indeed create two separate trusts, with the respondent being the sole beneficiary of the purpose trust. The court also concluded that the notice of termination was valid. However, the court noted that the trustees had not yet quantified their claim for remuneration from the trust property. This claim, which includes an entitlement to indemnification from the trust estate, affects the respondent's right to demand the conveyance of the entire trust estate from the trustees. The court ordered the trustees to make their claim for reimbursement within two weeks, allowing them to retain an amount sufficient to meet this claim. The balance of the trust estate was to be transferred to the respondent, and the application was otherwise dismissed, with liberty to apply.

The final orders of the court were that the applicants were to submit their claim for reimbursement within two weeks, retain an amount sufficient to meet their claim, and transfer the balance of the trust estate to the respondent. The application was dismissed in all other respects, with the option for the applicants to reapply.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicants are directed to make their claim for reimbursement for the performance of their duties within two weeks;

2. The applicants may retain under their control an amount sufficient to meet their claim for remuneration and are directed to transfer the balance of the trust estate to the respondent;

3. The application should be otherwise dismissed;

4. Liberty to apply

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.

CITATION:	McKnight & Anor v Ice Skating Queensland (Inc) [2007] QSC 273
PARTIES:	DONALD McKNIGHT and COLIN EDWARD JACKSON AS TRUSTEES OF THE ICE SKATING ASSOCIATION OF QUEENSLAND NO. 1 TRUST (applicants) v ICE SKATING QUEENSLAND (INCORPORATED) (respondent)
FILE NO:	7211 of 2007
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	26 September 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	13 September 2007
JUDGE:	Chesterman J
ORDER:	1. The applicants are directed to make their claim for reimbursement for the performance of their duties within two weeks; 2. The applicants may retain under their control an amount sufficient to meet their claim for remuneration and are directed to transfer the balance of the trust estate to the respondent; 3. The application should be otherwise dismissed; 4. Liberty to apply
CATCHWORDS:	EQUITY – TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES – PURPOSE TRUSTS – CONSTRUCTION OF TRUST DEED - TRUST PROPERTY – TERMINATION – RIGHTS OF BENEFICARIES - where the respondent is an incorporated association whose objects are the promotion and carrying on of ice skating – where the respondent created a trust for the purpose of erecting and operating ice rinks - where the applicants are the trustees of that trust - where the trust deed provided for the vesting of the trust property in the respondent on the eightieth anniversary of the trust’s inception - where the trustees purchased two properties for development into ice rinks – where those properties were transferred to the respondent upon the respondent’s incorporation and leased back to the applicants – where some time later the respondent demanded a transfer to it of the leases thereby terminating the trust – where the applicants sought a declaration that the trust was valid and subsisting – whether the respondent was the sole beneficiary of the trust entitled to beneficial ownership of the trust property – whether the trust deed created two trusts one a purpose trust and one a trust for the respondent of the remainder of the properties - whether the notice of termination was valid EQUITY – TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES RIGHTS OF TRUSTEES – REMUNERATION – INDEMNITY EFFECT ON TRUST ESTATE - where the trustees were entitled to claim inter alia remuneration from the proceeds of the trust property - where at the time of the purported termination the applicants claim substantial sums by way of remuneration for the performance of their duties – where the applicants are yet to determine the value of that claim – where this claim results in a right of indemnification from the trust estate – where until that indemnity is satisfied it would not be possible to say what the trust fund is - whether the claim affected the respondent’s right to call for the conveyance of the whole of the trust estate from the applicants Chief Commissioner of Stamp Duties for New South Wales v Buckle & Ors (1998) 192 CLR 226, applied Kemtron Industries Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Stamp Duties [1984]…