Strang v Strang

The case of Strang v Strang involved a dispute over a written declaration of trust concerning Crown land held under a weekend lease. The parties were the plaintiff, Strang, and the defendant, Strang, who was the executrix of the estate of the plaintiff's father. The plaintiff sought a vesting order, claiming that the requisite intention existed at the time of the declaration of trust, and sought to address equitable defences, including laches and delay. The defendant argued that the plaintiff was statute-barred from claiming a vesting order, as the claim for a vesting order arose when the plaintiff reached the age of majority. Additionally, the defendant claimed that the plaintiff was estopped from claiming a vesting order due to laches.

The legal issues the court had to decide were whether the requisite intention existed at the time of the declaration of trust, whether the plaintiff was statute-barred, and when the claim for a vesting order arose. The court also considered whether laches was available as a defence to a claim for a vesting order under s 71 of the Trustee Act 1925. The court examined the principles of statutory interpretation and the powers and duties of trustees, including whether the trustee could seek indemnity out of the trust estate for payment of expenses.

The court held that the requisite intention existed at the time of the declaration of trust, and that the claim for a vesting order arose when the plaintiff reached the age of majority. The court found that the plaintiff was not statute-barred as the claim for a vesting order arose before the statute of limitations began to run. The court also held that laches was not available as a defence to a claim for a vesting order under s 71 of the Trustee Act 1925. Finally, the court held that the trustee could seek indemnity out of the trust estate for payment of expenses related to the conduct of the trust or trust affairs.

The court ordered that the plaintiff be granted a vesting order and that the defendant transfer the trust property to the plaintiff's executrix. The court also ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the action.