JUDGE:	Goulden AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	24 July 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	10 September 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Reid v Reid
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 566

---

CIVIL PROCEDURE – Application by second defendant for summary judgment pursuant to ss 62 and 63 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) – Whether the claim enjoys real prospect of success – Application dismissed – Plaintiff’s claim enjoys a real prospect of success and raises factual disputes that should be examined and determined at trial.

EQUITY AND TRUSTS – Liability of third party for procuring or inducing breach of trust or breach of fiduciary duty– Whether such liability exists as a separate form of liability to those established by the two limbs in Barnes v Addy (1874) LR 9 Ch App 244 – Whether requirement that third party be ‘dishonest’.

LITIGATION GUARDIAN – Removal of litigation guardian under r 15.03(4)(a) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2025 (Vic) – Conflict of interest – Where a defendant is litigation guardian of another defendant in proceeding.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr P Reynolds	Moores
For the Defendants	Mr M O’Connor	Aughtersons Solicitors

HER HONOUR:

This proceeding comes before me on the hearing of two summonses as follows.

(a) The first summons, filed by the plaintiff on 6 March 2025, seeks removal of the second defendant as litigation guardian for the first defendant, and the appointment of a replacement. The plaintiff also seeks orders:

(i) for the reimbursement of the first defendant to the extent the second defendant has sought indemnity from her on account of the second defendant’s legal costs incurred as litigation guardian during his attorneyship; and

(ii) for the payment of his costs in the event he is successful in the application for removal.

(b) The second summons, filed by the second defendant on 11 April 2025, seeks summary judgment in respect of the plaintiff’s claim made against the second defendant, alternatively, that the plaintiff’s claim be struck out, and costs. The second defendant’s summons also sought dismissal on the basis of asserted non-compliance with discovery orders made in the proceeding but that application was not pressed at the hearing.

Despite being filed later in time than the plaintiff’s summons, the determination of the second defendant’s summary judgment application in the second defendant’s favour would obviate the need to consider the plaintiff’s application, and accordingly, I have considered that application first.

For the reasons that follow in this ruling, I will make orders:

(a) dismissing the second defendant’s summons;

(b) removing the second defendant as litigation guardian for the first defendant under r 15.03(4)(a) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015

Grounds of appeal

[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 Reid v Reid

Details

AGLC: Reid v Reid [2025] VSC 566
Case: [2025] VSC 566
Decision Date: 10 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Reid v Reid involved a dispute between the parties regarding claims of breach of trust and fiduciary duty. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff sought to hold the second defendant liable for procuring or inducing a breach of trust or fiduciary duty by the first defendant, and also sought the removal of the second defendant as the litigation guardian of the first defendant due to a conflict of interest.

The central legal issues the court had to decide were whether a third party could be held liable for procuring or inducing a breach of trust or fiduciary duty as a separate form of liability to those established by Barnes v Addy, and whether such liability required the third party to be dishonest. Additionally, the court had to determine whether there was a conflict of interest sufficient to warrant the removal of the second defendant as the litigation guardian under the relevant rule of court.

The court found that the plaintiff's claim had a real prospect of success and that the factual disputes should be examined and determined at trial. It was held that a third party could indeed be held liable for procuring or inducing a breach of trust or fiduciary duty as a separate form of liability, and that the requirement of dishonesty was not a necessary condition. Furthermore, the court concluded that there was a conflict of interest, and therefore ordered the removal of the second defendant as the litigation guardian of the first defendant.

The court dismissed the application for summary judgment and ordered that the case proceed to trial. Additionally, the court made an order removing the second defendant as the litigation guardian of the first defendant.

Orders