Legal Research
Cases
Stein v Sybmore Holdings Pty Ltd

Stein v Sybmore Holdings Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 27 September 2006 33 min read

Contents

On this page

CITATION: Stein v Sybmore Holdings [2006] NSWSC 1004

HEARING DATE(S): 19 September 2006

JUDGMENT DATE :
27 September 2006

JURISDICTION: Equity

JUDGMENT OF: Campbell J

DECISION: Order empowering trustee to amend trust deed to extend vesting date made.

CATCHWORDS: TRUSTS -- discretionary trusts -- nature of rights of property in -- TRUSTS -- power of court to approve advantageous dealings -- whether ever able to be used in a way which alters beneficial interests -- whether applicable to amendment of the Trust Deed -- whether power able to be used to extend vesting date of discretionary trust -- syntactic structure of section 81 Trustee Act 1925 (NSW) -- consideration of elements of section 81 Trustee Act 1925 (NSW) -- WORDS AND PHRASES – “expedient”

LEGISLATION CITED: Income Tax Assessment Act 1936
Trustee Act 1925
Trustee Act 1925 (Eng)

CASES CITED: Re AS Sykes (dec’d) and the Trustee Act [1974] 1 NSWLR 597
Arakella Pty Ltd v Paton (2004) 60 NSWLR 334
Audio Visual Copyright Society Ltd v Australian Record Industry Association Ltd [1999] NSWSC 947; (1999) 152 FLR 142
Re Bowmil Nominees Pty Ltd (as trustee of the Williamson Superannuation Fund) [2004] NSWSC 161
Commissioner of Stamp Duties (NSW) v Carlenka Pty Ltd (1995) 41 NSWLR 329
Re Cosaf Pty Ltd (Supreme Court of NSW, Young J, 18 December 1992, unreported)
Re Craven’s Estate [1937] Ch 431
Hartigan Nominees Pty Ltd v Rydge (1992) 29 NSWLR 405
Re Jay-O-Bees Pty Ltd (in liq); Rosseau Pty Ltd (in liq) v Jay-O-Bees Pty Ltd (in liq) [2004] NSWSC 818; (2004) 50 ACSR 565
Ku-Ring-Gai Municipal Council v The Attorney-General (1954) 55 SR (NSW) 65
James N Kirby Foundation v Attorney General (NSW) (2004) 213 ALR 366
NM Superannuation Pty Ltd v Hughes (Supreme Court of NSW, 5 March 1996, unreported, BC 9600423)
Re Philips New Zealand Ltd [1997] 1 NZLR 93
Riddle v Riddle (1952) 85 CLR 202

PARTIES: Morrie Jack Stein - Plaintiff
Sybmore Holdings Pty Ltd - First Defendant
Sybil Dolly Stein - Second Defendant
Tanya Robyn Stein - Third Defendant
Ian Samuel Stein - Fourth Defendant

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 3355/06

COUNSEL: G Burton SC - Plaintiff

SOLICITORS: Denes Ebner - Plaintiff
Submitting Appearances - Defendants

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
EQUITY LIST

CAMPBELL J

27 SEPTEMBER 2006

3355/06 STEIN v SYBMORE HOLDINGS PTY LTD

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: This is an application to vary a Trust Deed, under section 81 Trustee Act 1925.

Entering of the Trust Deed

2 Mr Morrie Stein was born on 12 June 1927. On 1 April 1978 he was aged 50, married, and with two young children, Tanya (born 30 November 1970), and Ian (born 20 June 1976).

3 In early 1978 Mr Stein discussed his financial affairs with his accountant, Mr Frank Hay. He asked Mr Hay whether it was possible to set up a family trust, and said that his intention was to provide for his wife, children and grandchildren after he was…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Stein v Sybmore Holdings Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2006] NSWSC 1004
Decision Date: 27 September 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Stein v Sybmore Holdings Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, Stein, challenged the defendant, Sybmore Holdings, regarding the interpretation and application of discretionary trust provisions within the Trust Deed. Stein argued that the court should not approve advantageous dealings in a way that alters the beneficial interests in the trust, nor should it amend the Trust Deed to extend the vesting date of the discretionary trust. The dispute reached the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues in the case centred on the interpretation of section 81 of the Trustee Act 1925 (NSW). The primary question was whether the power of the court to approve advantageous dealings could be used to amend the Trust Deed in a manner that alters the beneficial interests in the trust. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the syntactic structure of section 81 allowed for the extension of the vesting date of the discretionary trust. The case required a careful analysis of the elements of section 81 and how they interact with the Trust Deed.

The court examined the wording of section 81 and concluded that the power of the court to approve advantageous dealings did not extend to altering the beneficial interests as per the Trust Deed. The court held that the syntactic structure of section 81 did not permit the amendment of the Trust Deed to extend the vesting date of the discretionary trust. The court found that the power was intended to benefit the beneficiaries and could not be used in a way that would disadvantage them. The court thus dismissed Stein's claims.

The final orders of the court were that the Trust Deed could not be amended to extend the vesting date of the discretionary trust, and the court's power to approve advantageous dealings could not be used to alter the beneficial interests as specified in the Trust Deed. The decision reinforced the importance of maintaining the integrity of the trust and protecting the rights of the beneficiaries.

Orders