Legal Research
Cases
McLauchlan v Prince

McLauchlan v Prince

Case [2002] WASC 274 25 November 2002

Trust Administration

Misconduct of Trustees

Appointment of Trustees

Expedient

Vesting Orders

Trusts & Equity

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

McLAUCHLAN & ANOR -v- PRINCE & ANOR [2002] WASC 274

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASC 274
Case No:	CIV:2477/2000	Heard:	25 OCTOBER 2002
Coram:	HASLUCK J	Delivered:	25/11/02
No of pages:	13	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application allowed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	JOHN SCOTT McLAUCHLAN SERENA-ANNE JADE McLAUGHLAN ANTONY KEVIN ROYSTON PRINCE LEON KEITH JAMIESON
Catchwords:	Trust Administration of trust estate Misconduct by existing trustees Application to substitute new trustees Meaning of 'expedient' as a term conditioning the power to appoint new trustees Whether proposed new trustees precluded from acting by virtue of a beneficial interest in the estate Orders made to effect appointment of new trustees Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Trustees Act 1962, s 77, s 78, s 85 Bankruptcy Act 1966, Part X
Case References:	Attorney-General (NSW) v Elliott (1868) 6 SCR (NSW) Eq 85 Benzija v Adriatic Fisheries Pty Ltd (1984) 37 SASR 545 Ex parte Conybeare's Settlements [1853] 1 WR 458 Falkingham v Harbison (1899) 5 ALR 254 Gava v Grljusich, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 960010; 11 January 1996 In the Will of Benjamin [1920] VLR 393 Letterstedt v Broers (1884) 9 App Cas 371 McLauchlan v Prince [2001] WASC 43 Miller v Cameron (1936) 54 CLR 572 Pope v DRP Nominees Pty Ltd (1999) 74 SASR 78 Re Cunningham's Settled Estates [1909] 27 WN (NSW) 28 Re Roberts (1983) 70 FLR 158 Re Wrightson (1908) 1 Ch 789 Waddell v Patterson [1865] 2 WW&A'B(E) 36 Allen v Olsen (unreported, QSC, No 213 of 1982)

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : McLAUCHLAN & ANOR -v- PRINCE & ANOR [2002] WASC 274 CORAM : HASLUCK J HEARD : 25 OCTOBER 2002 DELIVERED : 25 NOVEMBER 2002 FILE NO/S : CIV 2477 of 2000 BETWEEN : JOHN SCOTT McLAUCHLAN

SERENA-ANNE JADE McLAUGHLAN

Plaintiffs

AND

ANTONY KEVIN ROYSTON PRINCE

First Defendant

LEON KEITH JAMIESON

Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Trust - Administration of trust estate - Misconduct by existing trustees - Application to substitute new trustees - Meaning of 'expedient' as a term conditioning the power to appoint new trustees - Whether proposed new trustees precluded from acting by virtue of a beneficial interest in the estate - Orders made to effect appointment of new trustees - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Trustees Act 1962, s 77, s 78, s 85

Bankruptcy Act 1966, Part X

(Page 2)

Result:

Application allowed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiffs : Mr D H Solomon

First Defendant : Mr G R Donaldson

Second Defendant : No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiffs : Solomon Brothers

First Defendant : Blake Dawson Waldron

Second Defendant : No appearance

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

Attorney-General (NSW) v Elliott (1868) 6 SCR (NSW) Eq 85
Benzija v Adriatic Fisheries Pty Ltd (1984) 37 SASR 545
Ex parte Conybeare's Settlements [1853] 1 WR 458
Falkingham v Harbison (1899) 5 ALR 254
Gava v Grljusich, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 960010; 11 January 1996
In the Will…

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 McLauchlan v Prince

Details

AGLC: McLauchlan v Prince [2002] WASC 274
Case: [2002] WASC 274
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involves an application to replace the existing trustees of a trust with new trustees, specifically the plaintiffs. The existing trustees are accused of mismanaging the trust estate, leading to significant financial loss. The application was brought under the Trustees Act 1962, specifically sections 77, 78, and 85, which grant the court the authority to appoint new trustees under certain conditions. The court must consider whether it is 'expedient' to appoint new trustees and whether it is 'inexpedient, difficult or impractical' to do so without court assistance. The court's discretion in such matters is broad, taking into account the welfare of the beneficiaries, the security of the trust property, and the efficient execution of the trust.

The court found that the existing trustees had indeed mismanaged the trust, leading to substantial financial losses. The first defendant's failure to supervise the second defendant's actions and his passive indifference amounted to wilful default. Given the mismanagement and the jeopardy to the trust property's safety, the court determined that it was expedient to replace the existing trustees. The court also considered the plaintiffs' suitability as the new trustees, noting that while generally reluctant to appoint beneficiaries as trustees, exceptional circumstances might warrant such an appointment. The plaintiffs, being the life tenant and sole remainder beneficiary, had a vested interest in the trust's proper management, which the court found to be a compelling reason for their appointment.

The court concluded that the appointment of the plaintiffs as trustees was warranted under the exceptional circumstances of the case. The court also found that the orders sought by the plaintiffs, which included the vesting of trust property in the new trustees and the removal of the existing trustees, should be granted. The court ruled that these orders would effectively bring the plaintiffs' action to a close, subject to any further orders that the parties might agree upon.

Orders