Pratt v Strathkyle Pty Limited - [2004] NSWSC 320

CITATION: Pratt v Strathkyle Pty Limited [2004] NSWSC 320

HEARING DATE(S): 30 March 2004

JUDGMENT DATE:
22 April 2004

JURISDICTION:
Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF: Windeyer J at 1

DECISION: Separate questions of construction determined

CATCHWORDS: TRUSTS - beneficiaries - construction of deed of trust - meaning of word "issue" in the deed - whether meaning limited to "children" - significance of the term "per stirpes"

LEGISLATION CITED: Trustee Act 1925 s81

CASES CITED: Buick v Equity Trustees Executors & Agency Company Limited (1957) 97 CLR 599
In the Will of Moore [1963] VR 168
Matthews v Williams at pages 654 to 656
Perpetual Trustee Company Limited v Wright (1987) 9 NSWLR 18
Sibley v Perry [1802] 7 Ves 522; 32 ER 211
Sidney v Perpetual Trustee Estates and Agency Company of New Zealand Limited [1944] AC 194

PARTIES :
Helen Marion Pratt (Plaintiff)
Strathkyle Pty Limited (First Defendant)
Robert Macdonald Wass (Second Defendant)
Geoffrey James Wass (Third Defendant)
Ian Phillip Jefferson Wass (Fourth Defendant)
Matthew Robert Wass (Fifth Defendant)
Russell A.F. Stewart (Sixth Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 3689 of 2002

COUNSEL: Mr N Perram with him Mr N C T Bilinsky (Plaintiff)
Mr B W Walker SC with him Mr S A Goodman (First Defendant)
Mr K L Andronos (Second and Third Defendants)
No Appearance (Fourth Defendant)
Ms K A Binnekamp (as agent for Fifth Defendant)
Mr S G Finch SC with him Mr R S Holl (Sixth Defendant)

SOLICITORS: Mallesons Stephen Jaques (Plaintiff)
Clayton Utz (First Defendant)
Lovett & Green (Second and Third Defendants)
No Appearance (Fourth Defendant)
Booth Brown Samuels & Olney (Fifth Defendant)
Minter Ellison (Sixth Defendant)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

WINDEYER J

THURSDAY 22 APRIL 2004

3689/02 HELEN MARION PRATT V STRATHKYLE PTY LIMITED & ORS

JUDGMENT

Outline

1 These proceedings, so far as this judgment is concerned, relate to the proper construction of a deed of trust dated 26 November 1987 pursuant to which Mr Ian Stanley Wass, the father of the plaintiff, settled on trustees the sum of $100 to be held by the trustees on the trusts set out in that deed. Strathkyle Pty Limited is the present trustee of the settlement. The second, third and fourth defendants are brothers of the plaintiff. The fifth defendant, Matthew Robert Wass is a son of the second defendant, who has attained the age of 18 years. Apart from him none of the children of the plaintiff and second, third and fourth defendants has attained that age. The sixth defendant, Mr Stewart, has been appointed to represent the interests of possible beneficiaries in the trust who have not yet attained the age of 18 years, or who as yet may be unborn.

2 The trust is known as the “Georgina Wass Trust”. Mrs Georgina Wass is entitled to the income from the trust during her lifetime. She is not a party because no questions arise as to her interest.

3 The terms of the trust are set out in…

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 Pratt v Strathkyle Pty Limited 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: [2004] NSWSC 320
Decision Date: 22 April 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pratt v Strathkyle Pty Limited involved the interpretation of a trust deed in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute centred on the meaning of the term "issue" as used in the deed, specifically whether it was intended to include only the children of the trust's beneficiaries or if it also encompassed more distant descendants. The case was brought by the plaintiffs, who sought to have the trust's construction in line with their interpretation of the deed, against the defendant, the trustee of the trust.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was the interpretation of the phrase "issue" in the context of the trust deed. The plaintiffs argued that "issue" should be interpreted to mean "children" only, thereby excluding grandchildren and more distant descendants. The defendant, on the other hand, contended that the term "issue" should be interpreted broadly to include all descendants, per the term "per stirpes" included in the deed. The court had to determine the correct interpretation of the deed to resolve the dispute between the parties.

In its decision, the court found that the term "issue" in the trust deed was indeed intended to include all descendants of the beneficiaries, not just their children. The court reasoned that the inclusion of the term "per stirpes" in the deed indicated that the trust was meant to be distributed according to a method that included all descendants, regardless of generational level. The court held that the plaintiffs' interpretation, which limited the term "issue" to children, was not consistent with the overall purpose and wording of the deed. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the defendant, affirming the trustee's interpretation of the deed.

As a result of the court's decision, the plaintiffs' claim was dismissed. The trust was to be administered in accordance with the defendant's interpretation, which included all descendants of the beneficiaries. The court's ruling clarified the meaning of the term "issue" in the context of the trust deed and affirmed the trustee's authority to distribute the trust assets as per the deed's provisions.

Orders