Beck v Henley

[2014] NSWCA 201

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Trusts
2. › Rights of beneficiaries
3. › Rule in Saunders v Vautier
4. › Power of adult beneficiary with absolute vested and indefeasible interest
5. › Direction by one of multiple beneficiaries to transfer aliquot share
6. › Whether special circumstances exist
7. › Whether splitting controlling interest in shares in private company constitutes special circumstances
8. › Whether evidence of quantified loss of value required
1. Trusts
2. › Trusts and trustees
3. › Duty of impartiality
4. › Whether duty of impartiality qualifies Saunders v Vautier power
5. › Whether acceding to one beneficiary's direction over opposition of another breaches duty of impartiality
1. Trusts
2. › Trusts and trustees
3. › Judicial advice
4. › Trustee Act 1925 (NSW), s 63
5. › Nature and history of application for judicial advice
6. › Whether appropriate for resolution of disputes between beneficiaries
7. › Nature of appeal from giving of judicial advice
1. Appeal
2. › Standard of appellate review
3. › Appeal from exercise of discretion under s 63 Trustee Act 1925 (NSW)
4. › Whether House v The King error established
5. › Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 101

Quick Take

The mere splitting of a controlling interest in shares in a private company does not constitute 'special circumstances' defeating a Saunders v Vautier direction by one of multiple adult beneficiaries absolutely and indefeasibly entitled; quantified evidence of loss of value is required. The trustee's duty of impartiality does not independently qualify the Saunders v Vautier power. The s 63 judicial advice procedure is appropriate for resolving disputes between beneficiaries about in specie distributions, and mandatory advice is appropriate where the direction is valid.