W E Pickering Nominees Pty Ltd v Pickering

In W E Pickering Nominees Pty Ltd v Pickering, the plaintiffs sought variations to a trust deed which affected the interests of potential unborn beneficiaries. The defendants consented to the proposed variations. The court had to determine whether the proposed variations were in the best interests of the potential unborn beneficiaries, and whether the court had the power to make such variations under the Trustee Act 1958, s 63A. The court also had to consider the precedent of other cases such as George v Kollias and Ors [2007] VSC 46, Thomas Hare Investments v Hare (2012) 34 VR 656, Alan Synman Family Trust [2013] VSC 364, Riddle v Riddle (1952) 85 CLR 202, Royal Melbourne Hospital v Equity Trustees Limited (2007) 18 VR 469, Re Barns [2011] VSC 314, and Re Dion Investments Pty Ltd (2014) 87 NSWLR 753.

The court considered the relevant statutory provisions and precedents in reaching its decision. The court noted that the power to vary a trust deed under the Trustee Act 1958, s 63A was discretionary and must be exercised in the best interests of the beneficiaries, including potential unborn beneficiaries. The court also noted that the principle of comity should be applied in considering the precedents of intermediate appellate courts in other jurisdictions, such as the Supreme Court of New South Wales, when interpreting statutory provisions. The court found that the proposed variations were in the best interests of the potential unborn beneficiaries and that the court had the power to make such variations under the Trustee Act 1958, s 63A.

The court also considered the precedent of Colonial Foundation Ltd v Attorney-General [2007] VSC 344 and Re Barns [2011] VSC 314, which established the principle of stare decisis in the Supreme Court of Victoria. However, the court found that these precedents did not apply in this case as the facts and circumstances were different. The court concluded that the proposed variations were in the best interests of the potential unborn beneficiaries and granted the plaintiffs' application for variations to the trust deed.

The final orders of the court were that the plaintiffs' application for variations to the trust deed be granted, and that the defendants be required to execute the necessary documents to effect the variations. The defendants were also ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the application.