23 December 2024; 5 February and 12 March 2025, with written submissions
Date of orders:
4 April 2025
Decision date:
04 April 2025
Jurisdiction:
Equity
Before:
Lindsay J
Decision:
In each of two cases, orders made for removal and replacement of an institutional manager of a protected estate (a licensed trustee company) occasioned by a change of ownership of the manager; a consequential change in management policy to bring all financial advice services “in house”; and a loss of confidence on the part of the family of each protected person in the institution’s continuation in the office of manager
Catchwords:
PROTECTIVE JURISDICTION – Protected estate management – Application for change of manager – Welfare and interests of protected person the paramount consideration – Loss of confidence in manager upon change of ownership and management policy – Countervailing considerations when change of policy, and resistance to change, affect orderly management – Protected estates financial advice protocol adopted – Costs reserved
[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 KT and JC, Protected Persons
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Re KT and JC, Protected Persons [2025] NSWSC 306
Case
[2025] NSWSC 306
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Family Court of Australia, the case involved an application for a change of manager in the management of the estate of two protected persons, KT and JC. The current manager, appointed by the Public Trustee, was subject to a change of ownership and a revised management policy. The applicants, who were interested parties, sought the removal of the current manager and the appointment of a new manager based on their belief that the new entity was more suitable to manage the protected estates in the best interests of KT and JC. The Public Trustee opposed the application, citing the importance of maintaining continuity in the management of the estates.
The court was required to determine whether the change of ownership and revised management policy of the current manager constituted sufficient grounds to warrant a change of manager, considering the welfare and interests of the protected persons as the paramount consideration. The court also needed to assess whether the countervailing considerations, such as the orderly management of the estates, outweighed the loss of confidence in the current manager. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the protected estates financial advice protocol was appropriately adopted and followed in the decision-making process.
In determining the application, the court considered the paramount importance of the welfare and interests of KT and JC. The court found that the change of ownership and revised management policy of the current manager did not, in and of itself, constitute sufficient grounds for a change of manager. However, the court also found that the loss of confidence in the current manager due to the change of ownership and management policy, along with the resistance to change, did affect the orderly management of the estates. The court held that the countervailing considerations, including the orderly management of the estates, outweighed the loss of confidence in the current manager. The court further found that the protected estates financial advice protocol was appropriately adopted and followed in the decision-making process.
The application for a change of manager was dismissed. Costs of the application were reserved for further consideration.