Travers-Murison v Ringrose-Voase

Case [2024] ACTSC 387


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Travers-Murison v Ringrose-Voase

Citation: 

[2024] ACTSC 387

Hearing Date: 

21 June 2024

Date of Last Submission:

3 December 2024

Decision Date: 

6 December 2024

Before:

Taylor J

Decision: 

(1)  The trusts established by the 2014 orders be dissolved.

Catchwords: 

TRUSTS – protective trust – where a person experiencing a mental health condition at the time of the establishment of a protective trust no longer suffers from that condition – whether to dissolve trust – jurisdiction of the Court – inherent or statutory jurisdiction – parens patriae jurisdiction – jurisdiction under Trustee Act 1925 (ACT), s 45(8) – where original orders provided for dissolution of the trust – whether the plaintiff has legal and/or financial capacity – consideration of medical evidence and documentary evidence – appropriate to dissolve trusts

Legislation Cited: 

Public Trustee and Guardian Act 1985 (ACT) s 25

Trustee Act 1925 (ACT) s 45

Mental Health Act 1958 (NSW) s 18

Guardianship and Management of Property Act 1991 (ACT) ss 4, 6A, 7, 8

Cases Cited: 

Jones (an infant) v Moylan (1997) 18 WAR 492; Aust Torts Reports 81-464

Zanki v Morris (Unreported, Supreme Court of Western Australia, Full Court, 31 July 1997)

Veal (by his next friend Watson) v Hehir [2018] ACTSC 330

In the matter of an adoption of QS (No 2) [2021] ACTSC 107

Williams v Hoang [2019] ACTSC 144

Singh v Calvary Hospital (No 2) [2009] ACTSC 57; 3 ACTLR 247

Scott v Scott [2012] NSWSC 1541

L N v Public Trustee for the ACT [2014] ACTSC 190

PY v RJS [1982] 2 NSWLR 700

Guthrie v Spence [2009] NSWCA 369; 78 NSWLR 225

Naso v Cottrell [2001] WADC 7

Masterman-Lister v Brutton & Co [2003] 3 All ER 162

Richard v AXA Trustees [2000] VSC 341

Parties: 

James Travers-Murison ( Applicant)

Anthony Ringrose-Voase ( Respondent)

Representation: 

Counsel

B Harders (21 June 2024), Self-represented, M Swivel ( Applicant)

Solicitors

Legal Aid ACT (21 June 2024), Self-represented, Barefoot Law ( Applicant)

File Number:

SC 175 of 2013

TAYLOR J:   

Introduction

1․Mr Travers-Murison, the applicant, seeks to dissolve a series of trusts established by orders of this Court in 2014 (the 2014 orders) on a final basis.  The applicant contends that the circumstances that existed at the time of the 2014 orders which included the appointment of a trustee to manage the applicant’s financial and legal affairs, no longer exist.  The applicant submitted that he now has capacity to manage his own affairs and sought orders giving effect to that capacity by the dissolution of the protective trusts. 

2․The trust is currently comprised of a property in Nymboida purchased in the name of the applicant with a combination of the trust funds and a gift from the applicant’s mother, with the remainder funded via a mortgage in the applicant’s name.  The property is registered in the applicant’s name. 

3․The first and second respondents did not file submissions on the application and indicated that they…

Continue reading Travers-Murison v Ringrose-Voase

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Travers-Murison v Ringrose-Voase [2024] ACTSC 387
Case
[2024] ACTSC 387
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Travers-Murison v Ringrose-Voase was a case in the ACT Supreme Court, involving the dissolution of trusts established under the will of the late Dr John Travers-Murison. The dispute arose because of changes in the mental health status of the beneficiary, which was a factor in the establishment of the trusts. The primary issue before the court was whether the trusts should be dissolved, considering the beneficiary's improved mental health condition. The court was required to decide on the jurisdiction to dissolve the trusts, whether it was inherent, statutory, or under the parens patriae jurisdiction, and if the plaintiff had the requisite legal and financial capacity.

The court examined the jurisdiction to dissolve the trusts, weighing the inherent and statutory powers. It considered the provisions under the Trustee Act 1925 (ACT), section 45(8), which allows for the dissolution of trusts under certain conditions. The court also assessed the medical evidence and documentary evidence provided, focusing on the beneficiary's current mental health status. Given the original orders included provisions for the dissolution of the trust upon changes in the beneficiary's condition, the court found that it was appropriate to dissolve the trusts. It concluded that the beneficiary's improved mental health justified the dissolution of the trusts as initially intended.

The court's decision was grounded in the original intentions of the trusts and the current evidence of the beneficiary's improved mental health. The court determined that the dissolution of the trusts was appropriate and in line with the original orders. Consequently, the court dissolved the trusts established by the 2014 orders, reflecting the beneficiary's current circumstances and the original intentions of the trusts.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The trusts established by the 2014 orders be dissolved.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.