Legal Research
Cases
Re BTA Institutional Services Australia Ltd

Re BTA Institutional Services Australia Ltd

Case [2009] NSWSC 1294 26 November 2009

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: BTA Institutional Services Australia Ltd & BNY Trust (Australia) Registry Ltd [2009] NSWSC 1294
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 6 November 2009

JUDGMENT DATE :
26 November 2009

JURISDICTION: Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF: Brereton J

DECISION: Judicial advice given

CATCHWORDS: EQUITY – trusts and trustees – applications to the court for advice and authority – where questions for which advice is sought relate management and administration of trust property – where law governing the trust is the law of NSW – where trust is administered in NSW – advice on question of construction – where persons with rights affected have been notified and given opportunity to be represented in court – advice given

LEGISLATION CITED: (NSW) Trustee Act 1925, s 63

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: ConnectEast Management v Commissioner of Taxation [2009] FCAFC 22, [24]
Draper v The Society of Our Lady’s Nurses of the Poor (1980) NSWSC, Kearney J, 3 December 1979, 8 February 1980, ed 3612/79, unreported
In the Estate of Webb (deceased) (1992) 57 SASR 193, 195-6 (King CJ)

PARTIES: BTA Institutional Services Australia Ltd (first plaintiff)
BNY Trust (Australia) Registry Ltd (second plaintiff)
Allco Asset Finance Ltd (objector)
Allco Managed Investments Ltd (objector)
Allco Management Ltd (objector)
ACME Funds Management Ltd (objector)
ACME Leasing Pty Ltd (objector)
Bank of Scotland plc (interested party)
SIF Ltd (interested party)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 4906/09

COUNSEL: Mr J Sackar QC w Mr M O’Meara & Mr J Arnott (plaintiffs)
Mr T Bathurst QC w Mr S Nixon (objectors)
Mr McHugh SC w Mr R Foreman (interested parties)

SOLICITORS: Gilbert & Tobin (plaintiffs)
Corrs Chambers Westgarth (objectors)
Watson Mangioni (interested parties)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

BRERETON J

Thursday, 26 November 2009

4906/09 Application of BTA Institutional Services Australia Limited & anor

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: The first plaintiff BTA Institutional Services Australia Limited (“BTA”), and the second plaintiff BNY Trust (Australia) Registry Limited (“BNY”), are the trustees of trusts created pursuant to four deeds which form a structure under which each of Allco Asset Finance Limited (“AAFL”), Acme Funds Management Limited (“Acme Funds”), Acme Leasing Pty Ltd (“Acme Leasing”), and Allco Managed Investments Limited (“AMIL”) is a financier in respect of a number of the aircraft leasing transactions, being some a total of 69 aircraft leasing transactions originated by AAFL and its parent entity. BTA is the trustee of trusts created under The Master Trust Deed – 2006, The Financing Deed – VH-VQU, and The Financing Deed – VH-VQZ; and BNY is the trustee of a trust created by the Ireland Master Trust Deed.

2 AAFL and Allco Management Limited (“AML”) act as managers of and perform managerial roles in relation to certain aviation transactions that have taken place under the structure created by the trust deeds. Under the Master Financing Deed (clause 5.1), each of the parties identified in a Financing Certificate for a…

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 Re BTA Institutional Services Australia Ltd

Details

AGLC: BTA Institutional Services Australia Ltd and BNY Trust (Australia) Registry Ltd [2009] NSWSC 1294
Case: [2009] NSWSC 1294
Decision Date: 26 November 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved an application by BTA Institutional Services Australia Ltd, the trustee of a trust, seeking advice and authority from the court concerning the management and administration of trust property. The trust was governed by New South Wales law and was administered in that jurisdiction. The court was asked to provide guidance on a question of construction regarding the trust. All individuals with rights affected by the trust had been notified and were given the opportunity to be represented in court.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether it had the jurisdiction to provide advice and authority on a question of construction relating to the trust. This issue hinged on the nature of the trust and the relevant governing law. The court had to determine whether the question of construction was one that it could properly address, given the circumstances and the rights of the affected parties.

In its reasoning, the court held that it did have the jurisdiction to provide the requested advice and authority. It found that the question of construction was appropriately before it, considering the legal framework governing the trust and the administrative context in New South Wales. The court noted that all individuals with rights in the trust had been given notice and the opportunity to participate in the proceedings, which further supported its jurisdiction. Consequently, the court provided the requested advice and authority on the question of construction.

The final orders of the court included its decision to advise and authorise BTA Institutional Services Australia Ltd in relation to the management and administration of the trust property. This decision was based on the court's determination that it had the necessary jurisdiction and that the question of construction was appropriately before it.

Orders