Re Plator Nominees

The application in Re Plator Nominees was brought before the Supreme Court of Victoria by the trustees of a discretionary trust. The applicants sought judicial advice concerning the governance of the trust by an amendment deed and an extension of the vesting date for certain beneficiaries. The primary dispute centred around the interpretation of the trust deed and the applicability of the amendment deed, as well as the court's jurisdiction to provide the requested advice and extend the vesting date. The court was tasked with determining whether it had the requisite jurisdiction to provide the advice and whether the proposed extension of the vesting date complied with relevant statutory provisions.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the trust deed and the amendment deed, the court's jurisdiction under the Trustee Act 1958 (Vic) to provide advice, and whether the proposed extension of the vesting date was permissible under the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1968 (Vic). Additionally, the court had to consider the procedural requirements under the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic) for making such an application. The applicants argued that the amendment deed governed the trust and that the court should extend the vesting date to ensure compliance with the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act.

The court examined the provisions of the Trustee Act and found that it had jurisdiction to provide advice on matters concerning the administration of trusts. However, the court noted that the provision of such advice must align with the trust deed and relevant statutory provisions. The court also considered the implications of extending the vesting date, emphasising the need for any extension to be consistent with the purposes of the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act. Ultimately, the court concluded that the amendment deed did not govern the trust as contended by the applicants and that the proposed extension of the vesting date was not permissible under the relevant legislation. The application for advice and the proposed extension of the vesting date were therefore dismissed.

In dismissing the application, the court made an order that the trustees were not to proceed with the proposed extension of the vesting date. The court further ordered that the trustees provide a report to the beneficiaries outlining the decision and the reasons for the dismissal. This report was to be submitted within a specified timeframe, ensuring that the beneficiaries were fully informed of the court's decision and the legal basis for it.