Legal Research
Cases
Wales v Wales

Wales v Wales

Case [2015] VSCA 345 16 December 2015

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCI 2015 0047

PERSEPHONE WALES (as the representative of the Estate of MURRAY WRIGHT WALES, deceased)	First Applicant
and
ROHAN WRIGHT WALES	Second Applicant
v
GLADYS WALES	First Respondent
and
ROSLYN MATEAR	Second Respondent
and
SUZANNE MARIE CASE	Third Respondent
S APCI 2015 0066
JULIAN WALES	Applicant
v
GLADYS WALES	First Respondent
and
ROSLYN MATEAR	Second Respondent
and
SUZANNE MARIE CASE	Third Respondent

---

JUDGES:	KYROU and McLEISH JJA and GINNANE AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	4 November 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	16 December 2015
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSCA 345
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2015] VSC 151 (McMillan J)

---

COSTS – Trustees – Applications for leave to appeal – Dispute between capital beneficiaries and trustees – Failure by trustees to maintain and provide full accounts – Trustees commenced proceeding to pass accounts and wind up trusts – Removal of trustees – Proceeding dismissed by consent save as to costs – Whether trustees entitled to costs of proceeding to be paid out of trusts – Whether proceeding commenced for proper purpose – Whether trustees failed to perform duties with reasonable diligence and care – Applications for leave to appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicants in S APCI 2015 0047	Mr R Wells with Mr J Rizzi	Tolhurst Druce & Emmerson
For the Applicant in S APCI 2015 0066	In person
For the Respondents	Mr P B Murdoch QC with Mr C M Archibald	HWL Ebsworth Lawyers

KYROU JA
McLEISH JA
GINNANE AJA:

These two applications for leave to appeal are brought in relation to orders as to costs in respect of a proceeding commenced and discontinued in the Trial Division. The proceeding concerned a series of family trusts. The issue in dispute is whether the costs of the proceeding should be paid out of the trust estates, as the trial judge ordered, or should be paid by the trustees personally. For the reasons that follow, leave to appeal should be refused.

The income beneficiary under each of the trusts, Beverley Hutchison, died on 3 September 2010. By her will, the first respondent, Gladys Wales, was appointed executrix and trustee of her estate and Mrs Wales’ daughters, Roslyn Matear and Suzanne Case, the second and third respondents, were the beneficiaries.

The three respondents were, at relevant times, the trustees of each of the trusts. The capital beneficiaries of the trusts, in varying proportions, are Mrs Wales’ nephews Rohan Wales, Julian Wales and Ashley Wales, and her daughters already mentioned. The nephews are beneficiaries, both in their own right and, in the case of one trust, through their interest as beneficiaries under the will of their late father Murray Wales. Persephone Wales, daughter of Rohan Wales, is the representative of the estate of Murray Wales in the present proceeding. Together with Rohan Wales, she brings the first application for leave to appeal.

The second application is brought by Julian Wales. The remaining beneficiaries, being Ashley Wales, Roslyn Matear and…

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 Wales v Wales

Details

AGLC: Wales v Wales [2015] VSCA 345
Case: [2015] VSCA 345
Decision Date: 16 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Wales v Wales, the dispute arose between the trustees of a family trust and the capital beneficiaries, specifically focusing on the trustees' failure to maintain and provide full accounts as required. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The beneficiaries sought to hold the trustees accountable for their shortcomings and questioned the propriety of the trustees' decisions, including the initiation of proceedings to pass accounts and wind up the trusts, as well as the removal of certain trustees. The court was tasked with determining whether the trustees were entitled to have the costs of their proceedings paid out of the trust funds, and if the proceeding was initiated for a proper purpose. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the trustees had failed to perform their duties with reasonable diligence and care.

The court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, focusing on the trustees' conduct and the reasons for initiating the proceeding. The beneficiaries argued that the trustees had not acted with the requisite diligence and care, and that the proceeding was not commenced for a proper purpose, particularly as it related to the trustees seeking to be indemnified for costs from the trust. The court considered the statutory framework governing trustees' duties and the general principles of equity applicable to trustees' actions. It also assessed the evidence regarding the trustees' reasons for initiating the proceeding and whether these reasons were reasonable and justified.

The court concluded that the trustees were not entitled to have the costs of the proceeding paid out of the trust funds, as the proceeding was not commenced for a proper purpose and the trustees had not discharged their duties with the requisite level of care and diligence. The court held that the trustees' actions did not meet the standard expected of them, particularly in relation to the maintenance and provision of accounts. The applications for leave to appeal were dismissed, and the court emphasised the importance of trustees fulfilling their duties with the utmost care and for the proper benefit of the beneficiaries.

The final orders reflected the court's findings, disallowing the trustees' claim for costs and highlighting the necessity for trustees to adhere to their fiduciary duties. The court's decision underscored the critical role of trustees in managing family trusts and the importance of accountability in their actions.

Orders