Re Perrot Mill Pty Ltd (No 2)

Perrot Mill Pty Ltd, as trustee of the Perrot Mill Trust, applied to the Court for judicial advice on its proposed investment strategy. The Court was required to consider the appropriateness of the trustee’s application for advice, including whether the trustee had discharged its duty to obtain expert opinion in support of the application. The Court also needed to determine whether the advice provided by the applicant’s counsel was sufficient and whether it addressed all relevant issues. Additionally, the Court had to consider the issue of costs and the trustee’s right to indemnification from trust assets.

The Court found that the applicant had not discharged its duty to obtain expert opinion in support of the application for judicial advice. The counsel’s opinion did not consider all immediately and potentially relevant issues and failed to address new issues that had been identified in correspondence already known to the parties. The Court considered that supplementary counsel’s opinion was required to address these issues. The Court also found that the applicant’s right to indemnification from trust assets should be reduced in light of the trustee’s failure to obtain sufficient expert opinion in support of its application.

The Court granted the applicant’s application for judicial advice, subject to the provision of supplementary counsel’s opinion. The Court also ordered that the applicant’s right to indemnification from trust assets be reduced by 20%. The Court held that the applicant’s failure to obtain sufficient expert opinion in support of its application for judicial advice was a significant factor in reducing the right to indemnification.

The Court ordered that the applicant’s application for judicial advice be granted, subject to the provision of supplementary counsel’s opinion. The Court also ordered that the applicant’s right to indemnification from trust assets be reduced by 20%. The Court held that the applicant had not discharged its duty to obtain expert opinion in support of its application for judicial advice and that the counsel’s opinion did not address all relevant issues. The Court also found that the applicant’s failure to obtain sufficient expert opinion in support of its application for judicial advice was a significant factor in reducing the right to indemnification.