Skyllas v State Trustees Limited - [2008] VSC 52

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

No. 8934 of 2005

JOHN SKYLLAS	Plaintiff
v
STATE TRUSTEES LIMITED	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	HARPER J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATES OF HEARING:	15-16 AUGUST 2007; 7-6, 12, 13 & 15 FEBRUARY 2008
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	3 MARCH 2008
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	SKYLLAS v STATE TRUSTEES LIMITED
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 52

---

TRUSTS – Real property – Registered proprietor in care and administrator appointed - Whether the administrator should be restrained from selling the property – Whether son of the registered proprietor has an equitable interest in the property – Whether property held on trust for the plaintiff.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	In Person
For the Defendant	Ms C. Sparke	Maddocks

HIS HONOUR:

The plaintiff, Mr John Skyllas, lives at 20 Amsterdam Street, Richmond. The land on which stands the house in which he lives is described in certificate of title volume 2946 folio 089. The registered proprietor is his mother, Mrs Anastasia Skyllas. But Mrs Skyllas is no longer in residence. She is almost 81 years old, having been born on 12 March 1927. On 24 September 2004 she was taken from the Richmond home for medical treatment. She has never returned, and now lives in accommodation for the elderly. It is not in dispute that her health is so frail that she was unable to give evidence in this trial.

On 2 February 2004,[1] about eight months before Mrs Skyllas left 20 Amsterdam Street, the defendant (State Trustees Limited) was appointed administrator of Mrs Skyllas’ affairs pursuant to Part 5 (“Administration Orders”) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1986. Division 3A (“Additional powers and duties of administrators”) of that Part confers on administrators powers in addition to those conferred by Division 3 (“Powers and duties of administrator”). Among the additional powers are those set out in s.58B. Subject to and in accordance with the Act and with the relevant administration order, an administrator upon appointment has the general care and management of the estate of the represented person. Indeed, as part of these responsibilities, the administrator is under a duty, imposed by s.58B(1)(b), to take possession and care of, recover, collect and preserve the property and estate of that person. Consistently with this, the administrator is given the express power, pursuant to s.58(2)(g), to sell or otherwise convert into money any of the property belonging to the person under the administrator’s charge.
[1]The date of appointment was not the subject of evidence, given that the fact of appointment was admitted. I have taken the date 2 February 2004 from the defendant’s chronology, which was produced during the trial. In each of its defence, amended defence, and further amended defence, however, the defendant (in each case, in paragraph 13) gives the date of its appointment as 10 August 2004. The date is relevant only as background information.

The defendant seeks to exercise these powers. It wishes to sell the…

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 Skyllas v State Trustees Limited

Details

AGLC: Skyllas v State Trustees Limited [2008] VSC 52
Case: [2008] VSC 52
Decision Date: 3 March 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Skyllas v State Trustees Limited, the dispute involved the registered proprietor of a property, who had appointed an administrator to manage their affairs. The plaintiff sought to restrain the administrator from selling the property, arguing that the son of the registered proprietor had an equitable interest in the property, which should be held on trust for the plaintiff. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The legal issues before the court included whether the administrator could be restrained from selling the property and whether the son had an equitable interest in the property that should be held on trust for the plaintiff.

The court considered whether the son had established an equitable interest in the property, which could result in the property being held on trust for him. The court examined the circumstances in which the son had contributed to the purchase of the property and whether there was an agreement or representation that he would have an interest in the property. The court also considered whether the son's contributions were sufficient to establish an equitable interest in the property. The court found that the son had an equitable interest in the property, which resulted in the property being held on trust for him. The court further found that the plaintiff had not established a sufficient interest in the property to restrain the administrator from selling it.

The court held that the administrator could not be restrained from selling the property, as the plaintiff had not established a sufficient interest in the property to do so. The court found that the son had an equitable interest in the property, which resulted in the property being held on trust for him. The court noted that the son's interest in the property was not absolute, and the registered proprietor retained the right to sell the property. However, the son's interest could be protected through the appointment of a trustee to hold the property on trust for him. The court made orders to this effect, and the administrator was directed to hold the property on trust for the son.

Orders