-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Trustees are personally liable to meet trust debts. However, difficulties can arise when a trustee has concerns regarding the bona fides of creditors. This issue was considered by the Court in Public Trust v Conway Madison Group Limited (In Liquidation). Background The Public Trust was appointed as a trustee of the Madison Family Trust (the Trust). Following … Continue reading
The decisions in Eden Refuge Trust make sobering reading for any person acting under a trustee’s instructions. The proceedings (see Eden Trust v Hohepa) relate to claims against a trustee for breach of trust and conversion, and claims against the solicitor acting for the trust for breach of fiduciary duty, knowing receipt and dishonest assistance. By way of … Continue reading
When Alexander Pope wrote “To err is human; to forgive, divine” it is doubtful that his mind was turned to matters equitable. However, the expression is an apt description of the recent decision in Official Assignee v Mayers. This case considers whether the Official Assignee can recover gifts made by way of forgiveness of debt prior to … Continue reading
A trustee has come out on top against liquidators when the liquidators attempted to recover payments relating to investments made without that trustee’s knowlege. However, whether the beneficiaries will be as sanguine about matters as the court is not clear. See https://mattersoftrust.wordpress.com/trust-law-update/rea-and-sargison-v-russell-trustee-liability-in-the-context-of-voidable-transactions/
A fundamental principle of trust law is that trustees act personally. However, there is a big difference between acting personally and acting in accordance with your personal beliefs. This dichotomy, and the resulting consequences are high-lighted in the recent United Kingdom case of White v Williams.
The recent case of Rabson v Gallagher provides an excellent example of how not to use trusts in the context of protecting property from a relationship partner. The first mistake made was to intermingle relationship property and trust property. Where this happens any party should expect the court to ensure that the disaffected former partner is compensated. It is entirely possible and permissible … Continue reading
Another day, another decision. Beneficiaries of new appear to be more litigious beasts than beneficiaries of old. I blame the internet. Or google. Whatever the reason, trustees need to take more care to ensure that their decisions cannot be impugned. This point is highlighted in McNulty v McNulty & Ors a case involving two beneficiaries and … Continue reading
Matters of Trust 