Appointment and Removal of Trustees

The welfare of the beneficiaries is the court’s dominant consideration in appointing and removing trustees {Letterstedt v Broers (1884) 9 App Cas 371 at 386 per Lord Blackburn; Miller v Cameron (1936) 54 CLR 572 at 579 per Starke J}.

The Court is alert to something that induces it “to think either that the trust property will not be safe or that the trust will not be properly executed in the interests of the beneficiaries” {Re Wrightson [1908] 1 Ch 789 at 803 per Warrington J. See also Miller v Cameron at 575 per Latham CJ}

To this end the court looks chiefly to three factors when appointing {Re Tempest (1866) LR 1 Ch App 485 at 487-488 per Turner LJ; Wells v Wily (2004) 183 FLR 284 at [21] per Austin J; Saul v Lin (no. 2) (2004) 60 NSWLR 275 at [48] per Palmer J; Hancock v Rinehart [2014] NSWSC 658 [26-27]}.

Everest Capital Limited as Trustee of the EBI Income Fund v Trust Company Limited & Ors [2010] NSWSC 321

 Fay v Moramba Services Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 1428

Pope v DPR Nominees Pty Ltd [1999] SASC 337

Pope v Pope [2001] SASC 26

Wendt v Orr [2004] WASC 28

McLauchlan v Prince [2002] WASC 274

McLauchlan v Prince

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>