Re KSK Holdings (Australia) Pty Ltd (in liq)

The liquidator of KSK Holdings (Australia) Pty Ltd sought directions from the Court in relation to property held by the company. The company was the trustee of two family trusts identified by different Australian Business Numbers (ABNs). The liquidator argued that the company had been removed as the trustee of the second trust by virtue of an ipso facto clause in the trust deed. However, there was no deed for the first trust, and the property held by the company was apparently held as the trustee of this trust. The liquidator sought a declaration that the company remained the trustee of the first trust and a direction to enable the liquidator to sell the property.

The court was required to determine whether the company remained the trustee of the first trust and, if so, whether the liquidator should be directed to sell the property. The court considered the relevant legislation and the terms of the trust deeds. The court noted that the company had been removed as the trustee of the second trust by the ipso facto clause in the trust deed. However, the court found that the absence of a trust deed for the first trust meant that the company had not been removed as the trustee of this trust. The court held that the company remained the trustee of the first trust and directed the liquidator to sell the property.

The court's reasoning was based on the absence of a trust deed for the first trust. The court noted that the ipso facto clause in the trust deed for the second trust had resulted in the company's removal as trustee of this trust. However, the court found that the absence of a trust deed for the first trust meant that the company had not been removed as the trustee of this trust. The court held that the company remained the trustee of the first trust and directed the liquidator to sell the property to realise funds for the benefit of the company's creditors. The court found that the absence of a trust deed for the first trust did not mean that the property held by the company was not subject to the trust. The court held that the company remained the trustee of the first trust and that the liquidator should be directed to sell the property to realise funds for the benefit of the company's creditors.