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 Masterman-Lister v Brutton & Co [2003] 3 All ER 162 |
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
- AGLC
- Travers-Murison v Ringrose-Voase [2024] ACTSC 387
- Case
- [2024] ACTSC 387
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.