Sweeney v Sweeney (No 2) - [2016] VSC 550

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
AT MELBOURNE
COMMERCIAL COURT

Not Restricted

S ECI 2016 0061

WILLIAM JOSEPH SWEENEY and CATHERINE MARY WALTER (who apply in their capacity as Trustees of the Bacchus Marsh Land Trust)	Plaintiffs
v
CHARLES AUGUSTINE SWEENEY	First Defendant
FRANCIS JOHN SWEENEY	Second Defendant
CATHERINE MARY WALTER (in her own capacity and in her capacity as Executor of the Will of Elizabeth Coral Sweeney)	Third Defendant
WILLIAM JOSEPH SWEENEY (in his own capacity and in his capacity as Executor of the Will of Elizabeth Coral Sweeney)	Fourth Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Digby J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	5 September 2016
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	5 September 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Sweeney & anor v Sweeney & ors (No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSC 550

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Originating Motion – Application under Order 54 Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 – Section 63 of the Trustee Act 1958 –Trustees’ powers to dispose of Land the subject of a trust – Contract of Sale of trust Land – Special Condition of Contract of Sale that such contract be conditional upon the Vendors obtaining a Court order establishing that the Vendors have full and exclusive legal authority to enter into that contract.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr M Costello with Ms G Coleman	Tolhurst Druce & Emmerson
For the Defendants	No appearance

HIS HONOUR:

The Proceeding

In this matter the plaintiffs are Trustees of what is known as the Bacchus Marsh Land Trust. The defendants, who include the plaintiffs, appear in their personal capacity as beneficiaries of that trust.

This proceeding, which has been commenced by way of Originating Process, principally concerns the proposed sale of the sole asset of the Bacchus Marsh Land Trust which is a 45 hectare property known as Lot 1 Buckleys Road, Merrimu, at Bacchus Marsh, more particularly described in Certificate of Title Volume 11585 Folio 062 ( the Bacchus Marsh Land).

The relief sought by the plaintiffs in this proceeding relates to the power to sell the Bacchus Marsh Land by a conditional Contract of Sale dated 30 October 2015 (the Contract of Sale), entered into between the plaintiffs, in their capacity as Trustees of the Bacchus Marsh Land Trust, and a company known as Bacchus Marsh Developments Pty Ltd. The subject Contract of Sale is Exhibit “WJS-3”to the affidavit of William Joseph Sweeney sworn 19 March 2016 (William Sweeney’s first affidavit). The relief sought by the plaintiffs also concerns the defendants' respective entitlements to the purchase price payable pursuant to that conditional Contract of Sale.

The conditional Contract of Sale contains certain relevant Special Conditions, in particular Special Conditions 2.1, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4. These Special Conditions provide as follows –

2.1 Definitions

Condition Precedent Event means the obtaining, by the Vendors, of either

(a) a court order, or

(b) consents by the beneficiaries for whom the Vendors hold the Land in trust establishing that the Vendors have full and exclusive…

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 Sweeney v Sweeney (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Sweeney v Sweeney (No 2) [2016] VSC 550
Case: [2016] VSC 550
Decision Date: 5 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Sweeney v Sweeney (No 2), the matter was before the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the court dealt with an originating motion concerning the sale of land held in trust. The dispute between the parties, Sweeney and Sweeney, centred on whether the Vendors had the requisite authority to sell trust land and whether the contract of sale was legally binding. The central issue was whether the court should grant an order under Section 63 of the Trustee Act 1958, allowing the Vendors to dispose of the trust land, subject to the condition that they first obtain such an order from the court.

The court was required to determine whether the special condition in the contract of sale, stipulating that the contract was conditional upon the Vendors obtaining a court order establishing their authority to sell the land, was valid and enforceable. The court also needed to assess the legal authority of the Vendors to enter into the contract of sale and whether the Trustees had acted within their powers under the Trustee Act 1958.

In its decision, the court considered the legal framework governing trustees’ powers to dispose of land held in trust and the requirements for obtaining court approval under Section 63 of the Trustee Act 1958. The court found that the condition in the contract of sale was a valid and enforceable requirement, as it was necessary to ensure that the Vendors had the authority to sell the trust land. The court concluded that the Vendors had not demonstrated that they had full and exclusive legal authority to enter into the contract of sale and thus denied the application. The court held that the Trustees had not acted within their powers in allowing the sale of the trust land without first obtaining the requisite court order.

Orders