Wilstead No. 5 Pty Ltd v Smyth

Link copied
Case Copied 23 min read
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL COURT

S ECI 2020 01116

WILSTEAD NO. 5 PTY LTD (ACN 006 983 482) as trustee of the Bowen Family Trust Plaintiff
v
ANTHONY PAUL SMYTH Defendant

---

JUDGE:

LYONS J

WHERE HELD:

Melbourne

DATE OF HEARING:

1 October 2020

DATE OF JUDGMENT:

7 October 2020

CASE MAY BE CITED AS:

Wilstead No. 5 Pty Ltd v Smyth

MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:

[2020] VSC 651

---

TRUSTS – Trust Deed – Definition of Primary Beneficiaries – Whether definition absurd – Whether Court should delete words if absurd – No absurdity established.

TRUSTS – Trust Deed – Equity – Rectification – Definition of Primary Beneficiaries – Whether definition did not reflect common intention of settlor and trustee – Clear and convincing proof of common actual intention – Form of rectification clear and precise in its terms, reflecting the actual common intention – Rectification granted.

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel Solicitors
For the Plaintiff Dr M Barrett Thomson Geer
For the Defendant Mr B Gillies Carrick Gill Smyth

HIS HONOUR:

INTRODUCTION

  1. The plaintiff is the trustee of the Bowen Family Trust (the ‘Trust’) established by the Bowen Family Trust Deed dated 19 August 1988 (the ‘Trust Deed’).  The issue before the Court is whether each of Robert Evan Bowen, who was responsible for establishing the Trust, and his then wife Venetia Kitson Bowen (‘Mrs Bowen’) is a Primary Beneficiary of the Trust.  The plaintiff seeks a declaration that on the proper construction of the Trust Deed each of them is a Primary Beneficiary of the Trust.  Alternatively, it seeks an order for rectification of the Trust Deed to that effect.

  1. Because the class of Primary Beneficiaries under the Trust Deed, as properly construed, may include children not yet of full age or unborn children who may be affected by the relief sought in this proceeding (including the children of the children of Mr Bowen and Mrs Bowen), I ordered that Mr Smyth be appointed to represent the Primary Beneficiaries other than those of full age who provided affidavits signalling their consent to the orders sought in this matter (‘Represented Class’), and that Mr Smyth be named as defendant in the proceeding in his capacity as representative of the Represented Class.

  1. For the reasons that follow, I have concluded it appropriate to order rectification of the Trust Deed in the terms sought by the plaintiff. 

BACKGROUND TO THE TRUST

  1. The plaintiff relies on the affidavits of:

(1)       Mr Bowen sworn 4 February 2020 (‘Mr Bowen’s affidavit’);

(2)       Mrs Bowen sworn 10 January 2020 (‘Mrs Bowen’s affidavit’);

(3)       Hannah Louise Brooks (née Bowen) affirmed 10 January 2020 (‘Hannah Brooks’ affidavit’);

(4)       Lucy Anne Bowen affirmed 16 January 2020 (‘Lucy Bowen’s affidavit’);

(5)       Alice Jane Bowen affirmed 10 January 2020 (‘Alice Bowen’s affidavit’); and

(6)       Michael John Anthony Tiernan sworn 19 February 2020 (‘Mr Tiernan’s affidavit’). 

  1. The  defendant relies on the affidavit of Mr Smyth sworn 17 July 2020.

  1. The relevant facts are not in dispute. 

  1. Mr…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Wilstead No. 5 Pty Ltd v Smyth and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2020] VSC 651
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Wilstead No. 5 Pty Ltd brought proceedings against Smyth regarding the interpretation and rectification of a trust deed. The central issue was the definition of primary beneficiaries within the trust deed and whether the court should rectify the deed based on the actual common intention of the settlor and trustee. The court was tasked with determining whether the definition of primary beneficiaries was absurd and, if not, whether rectification was warranted to accurately reflect the common intention.

The primary legal issue was whether the definition of primary beneficiaries within the trust deed was absurd to the extent that the court should intervene to delete certain words. Additionally, the court had to decide if there was a basis for rectification under equity, particularly if the deed did not reflect the common intention of the settlor and trustee. The court needed to ascertain whether the common intention was proven with clear and convincing evidence and whether the proposed rectification was clear and precise.

In examining the definition of primary beneficiaries, the court found that there was no absurdity in the terms used. However, it was established that the definition did not align with the common intention of the settlor and trustee. The evidence provided demonstrated a clear and convincing proof of the actual common intention, and the proposed form of rectification was clear and precise in its terms. Consequently, the court granted the rectification, ensuring the trust deed accurately reflected the common intention of the parties involved.

The court ordered that the trust deed be rectified to correctly define primary beneficiaries, reflecting the actual common intention of the settlor and trustee. This rectification aimed to ensure the trust deed accurately represented the intentions of the parties, thereby aligning the legal document with the actual agreement.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.