NRP v NSW Trustee and Guardian - [2015] NSWSC 250

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: NRP v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2015] NSWSC 250
Hearing dates: 13 March 2015
Date of orders: 13 March 2015
Decision date: 13 March 2015
Before: Lindsay J
Decision:
Order that a statement of claim be struck out, and that further discovery be refused, together with orders for management of the principal proceedings and a related estate.

Catchwords: PRACTICE – Summary disposal – Statement of claim stuck out – Case management – Litigant in person
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 NSW,
Damages (Infants and Persons of Unsound Mind) Act 1929 NSW
Infants Custody and Settlement Act 1899 NSW
Limitation Act 1969 NSW
NSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009, NSW
Public Trustee Act 1913 NSW
Cases Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 NSW,
Damages (Infants and Persons of Unsound Mind) Act 1929 NSW
Texts Cited: Meagher, Gummow and Lehane’s Equity Doctrines and Remedies (Butterworths Australia, 5 ed, 2015
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: NRP (Plaintiff)
NSW Trustee and Guardian (Defendant)
Representation:
Plaintiff: in person
Defendant: Ms C Phang, solicitor
Solicitors:
Plaintiff: self-represented
Defendant: NSW Trustee and Guardian

File Number(s): 2011/376346

Judgment – EX TEMPORE

These proceedings have gone off the rails for want of a properly pleaded statement of claim, accompanied by an insatiable demand by the plaintiff for discovery.
In the interests of the administration of justice, and the due administration of a deceased estate, the plaintiff’s beneficial interest in which underpins his standing to run a case against the defendant, case management orders are necessary in an endeavour to put the proceedings back on track.
In the principal proceedings before the Court the plaintiff (a self-represented litigant) sues the defendant (as the statutory successor of the Public Trustee and in its own right) on what appears to be a claim for equitable compensation for breaches of trust (discussed in Meagher, Gummow and Lehane’s Equity Doctrines and Remedies (Butterworths Australia, 5 ed, 2015) at paras 23-020, 23-030 and 23-070) said to arise out of wilful defaults in accounting for moneys formerly held by the Public Trustee on trust for his incapacitated daughter and now held by the defendant as trustee of her deceased estate.
A trustee has an obligation to account which, in the common case, is an obligation to account for moneys actually received. Where there has been a wilful breach of the obligation to account, the trustee may be held liable not only for moneys actually received but also for moneys which the trustee ought to have received.
The defendant contends that, having complied with its statutory obligations, initially, as the trustee (appointed in 1989 under s 4(c)(i) of the Damages (Infants and Persons of Unsound Mind) Act 1929 NSW) of a personal injury compensation award made to the plaintiff’s daughter and, following her death, as administrator and trustee of her deceased intestate estate, it now holds on trust for the plaintiff the sum of $2,245,765.40 or thereabouts based on an accounting for actual receipts and expenditure.
Section 4…

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 NRP v NSW Trustee and Guardian 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: [2015] NSWSC 250
Decision Date: 13 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, NRP brought proceedings against the NSW Trustee and Guardian in the Supreme Court. The plaintiff was proceeding as a litigant in person, without legal representation. The nature of the dispute involved claims concerning the management of an estate and potential breaches of fiduciary duty. The defendant sought to have the plaintiff's statement of claim struck out under rule 19.10 of the Supreme Court Rules, arguing that the claims were frivolous or vexatious and should not be proceeded with.

The court considered whether the claims were legally untenable or an abuse of the court's process. The judge examined the content of the statement of claim to determine whether it disclosed a reasonable cause of action. The court found that while the claims were not well-drafted, they did not appear to be frivolous or vexatious. The judge held that the plaintiff's claims, albeit poorly articulated, were not legally untenable and did not constitute an abuse of process. Consequently, the application to strike out the statement of claim was dismissed.

The court emphasised the importance of providing litigants in person with a fair opportunity to present their case, even if their claims are not perfectly framed. The decision highlighted the need for the court to approach such matters with caution, ensuring that the principles of natural justice are upheld. The case underscored the importance of proper case management in cases where parties appear unrepresented, to facilitate a fair hearing.

The final orders of the court were that the application to strike out the statement of claim was dismissed, and the case was to proceed to further case management to address the issues raised.

Orders