CRYSTAL SIENNA RICHARDSON (BY HER LITIGATION GUARDIAN ELIZABETH ANNETTE RICHARDSON)	First Plaintiff
DARREN JOHN WILSON	Second Plaintiff
DAVID JAMES HUGHES	Third Plaintiff
V
AILEEN PTY LTD	First Defendant
BRIAN JOSEPH McGRATH	Second Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Mandie J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	11 April 2007
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	23 April 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re application by D.J. Hughes; Richardson v Aileen Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 104

---

TRUSTS – trustee’s fees and expenses – priority – new trustee appointed to realise and distribute trust funds at the instance of the beneficiaries and the former trustee – claim by new trustee for payment of his fees and expenses out of the realised fund in priority to the fees and expenses of the former trustee.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the First Plaintiff	Mr R H Miller	Kempsons
For the Third Plaintiff	Mr J S Graham	Lawson Hughes Peter Walsh
For the First and Second Defendant	Mr D Colman	Harding & Co

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

The heading to this proceeding, other than the names of the parties, is now somewhat misleading. What is presently before the Court is a summons filed 20 November 2006 on behalf of David James Hughes, a solicitor (“Mr Hughes” or “the new Trustee”). Pursuant to that summons (para 3(b)) Mr Hughes seeks an order that he shall:

“be entitled, as a priority to all others including Aileen Pty Ltd[1], to be paid from the balance of proceeds of sale of the Property[2] (including the Deposit[3] or such balance then remaining) all of his proper and reasonable costs and disbursements calculated on an indemnity basis associated with the carrying out of his obligations pursuant to the Order of the Court dated 2 June 2006.”

[1]The first defendant.

[2]Defined in the summons as “the whole of the land contained in Certificate of Title vol 20758 fol 126 and known as Factory 1, 67 Matthews Avenue, Airport West in the State of Victoria” – hereinafter called “Lot 1”.

[3]Defined as “the deposit held in respect of the sale of the Property”.

The application relates to a trust (“the Trust”) known as the One Hawker Holdings Trust that was set up during his lifetime by John Adrian Wilson, deceased (“the deceased”),[4] for the benefit, inter alios, of his son (the second plaintiff) and his daughter (the first plaintiff). Although the summons seeks an order as set out above, it is clear that the relief sought by Mr Hughes is an order that would permit him to take from the Trust fund both his past proper costs and expenses and his future proper costs…

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 Richardson v Aileen Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Richardson v Aileen Pty Ltd [2007] VSC 104
Case: [2007] VSC 104
Decision Date: 23 April 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Richardson v Aileen Pty Ltd, the dispute centred around the allocation of fees and expenses for trustees managing a trust fund. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The new trustee, appointed by the beneficiaries, sought to have his fees and expenses paid out of the trust fund before the fees and expenses of the former trustee, who had been removed from his position.

The legal issues before the court involved the priority of the new trustee's fees and expenses over those of the former trustee. The court had to determine whether the new trustee's costs should be prioritised, considering the circumstances under which he was appointed, and whether the beneficiaries' decision to appoint him warranted such priority. The court needed to balance the rights of the beneficiaries who appointed the new trustee against the rights of the former trustee who had already incurred expenses.

The court examined the nature of the new trustee's appointment and the reasons behind it. It considered the principle that a trustee appointed by the beneficiaries to realise and distribute the trust funds is entitled to priority for their fees and expenses over a former trustee. The court found that since the new trustee was appointed at the instance of the beneficiaries, his fees and expenses should indeed be paid in priority to those of the former trustee. This decision was based on the understanding that the beneficiaries had acted to ensure the proper administration and distribution of the trust fund, thereby justifying the priority claim.

The court ordered that the fees and expenses of the new trustee be paid out of the realised fund in priority to the fees and expenses of the former trustee. This ruling provided clarity on the priority of fees and expenses in the context of a new trustee appointed by beneficiaries, ensuring that such trustees are compensated for their efforts in realising and distributing the trust funds.

Orders