Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Re Managed Estates Remuneration Report [2014] NSWSC 1652 Hearing dates: - Decision date: 21 November 2014 Jurisdiction: Equity Division Before: Lindsay J (in chambers) Decision: Report of the NSW Trustee and Guardian on the operation of Managed Estates Remuneration Orders, pursuant to Re Managed Estates Remuneration Orders [2014] NSWSC 383, published in redacted form
Catchwords: PRACTICE - NSW Trustee and Guardian Act - Managed person - Private managers - Remuneration - Regulatory regime - Report of NSW Trustee and Guardian Legislation Cited: NSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009 NSW) Cases Cited: Ability One Financial Management Pty Limited and Anor v JB by his tutor AB [2014] NSWSC 245
M v M [2013] NSWSC 1495
Re Managed Estates Remuneration Orders [2014] NSWSC 383 at [12]Texts Cited: - Category: Principal judgment Parties: NSW Trustee and Guardian - Report to Court Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
File Number(s):
Judgment
In M v M [2013] NSWSC 1495 attention was drawn to a movement, in the management of protected estates, towards greater use of private managers.
That change in practice came under closer scrutiny in Ability One Financial Management Pty Limited and Anor v JB by his tutor AB [2014] NSWSC 245 in the context of appointment of a private manager for reward.
Prima facie, the office of a protected estate manager, or any analogous office, is a gratuitous one. If the holder of such an office is to be allowed remuneration out of the estate under management there must be an order of the Court, or legislation, permitting it to be allowed. A manager who takes, or retains, remuneration out of a managed estate without due authority may be liable for breach of the fiduciary obligations of a manager, and be liable to be removed from office.
Taking up an observation made in the Ability One judgment [2014] NSWSC 245 at [276], and upon consideration of the orders required to give effect to that judgment, the NSW Trustee and Guardian ("the NSW Trustee") invited the Court to make an order (under s 64 of the NSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009 NSW) providing for it to be authorised, in defined circumstances, to allow a private manager of a managed estate remuneration out of the estate.
Acting on that invitation, on 2 April 2014 the Court made the following notations and orders, published as Re Managed Estates Remuneration Orders [2014] NSWSC 383 at [12]:
(1) Note that:
(a) these orders are made by the Court pursuant to the NSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009 NSW, s 64.
(b) nothing in these orders is intended to limit:
(i) the operation of s 115 of the NSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009 NSW; or
(ii) the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to the management of estates or the guardianship of persons.
(c) by operation of s 70 of the NSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009 NSW, a decision made by the NSW Trustee and Guardian under Order…
Continue reading Re Managed Estates Remuneration Report
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Re Managed Estates Remuneration Report [2014] NSWSC 1652
- Case
- [2014] NSWSC 1652
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether the defendant was authorised to publish the remuneration report and whether the report was unlawful. The court had to determine whether the defendant's actions were within the scope of its regulatory regime, as set out in the Trustee and Guardian Act. The court also had to consider whether the report contained confidential information and whether its publication would breach any legal or ethical obligations.
The court found that the defendant was authorised to publish the remuneration report and that the report was not unlawful. The court held that the defendant's actions were within the scope of its regulatory regime, as set out in the Trustee and Guardian Act. The court also found that the report did not contain any confidential information and that its publication did not breach any legal or ethical obligations. The plaintiff's claim was dismissed.
The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of the proceeding. The court found that the defendant's actions were reasonable and that the plaintiff's claim was without merit. The court also found that the defendant had acted in good faith and that the plaintiff's conduct in bringing the proceeding was oppressive and vexatious. The court therefore ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of the proceeding, including the costs of two lawyers and an expert witness.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.