Neville v Lam (No 2)

Neville and Lam were the parties in this case, which involved a dispute over a trust established by Lam's mother, who was Neville's aunt. The dispute reached the Family Court of Australia, where the court was tasked with determining several issues. The first issue was whether Lam had a right to a formal accounting of the trust's assets. The second issue was whether the court should order that the trust's assets be divided equally between Lam and Neville. The third issue was whether Lam should receive any payment from the trust for her efforts in managing it. The fourth issue was whether the court should grant Lam an adjournment to allow her to obtain further legal advice.

The court considered the evidence presented by both parties and examined the relevant legal principles. Regarding the first issue, the court found that Lam was entitled to a formal accounting of the trust's assets. The court held that Lam had a right to know the details of the trust's finances, as she was a beneficiary of the trust. Regarding the second issue, the court found that there was no basis for dividing the trust's assets equally between Lam and Neville. The court held that the trust deed did not provide for such a division, and that there was no evidence to suggest that the settlor intended for the assets to be divided equally. Regarding the third issue, the court found that Lam was not entitled to any payment from the trust for her efforts in managing it. The court held that there was no provision in the trust deed for such a payment, and that Lam had not provided any evidence to support her claim for compensation. Regarding the fourth issue, the court granted Lam an adjournment to allow her to obtain further legal advice.

The court ordered that a formal accounting of the trust's assets be prepared and provided to Lam. The court also ordered that the trust's assets be held in trust for the benefit of Lam and Neville, in accordance with the terms of the trust deed. The court did not order any division of the trust's assets between Lam and Neville, nor did it order any payment to Lam for her efforts in managing the trust. The court granted Lam an adjournment to allow her to obtain further legal advice, but did not specify the length of the adjournment or the reasons for it.