Segelov v Ernst & Young Services Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 156

Segelov v Ernst & Young Services Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 156

The appeal failed because, properly construed, cls 2.1(a) and 6.26 permitted interim distributions of income during the financial year, with the defined term "Income" imposing a quantitative maximum rather than a temporal restriction based on completion of annual accounts. The payments into the joint accounts were...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Equity Division / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['express Trusts' 'discretionary Trusts' 'construction of Trust Deed' 'interim Distributions of Income' 'trustee Discharge' 'duty to Inform Beneficiaries' 'trustee Exemption Clauses']
['equity' 'trusts'] ['express Trusts' 'discretionary Trusts' 'construction of Trust Deed' 'interim Distributions of Income' 'trustee Discharge' 'duty to Inform Beneficiaries' 'trustee Exemption Clauses']

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Equity Division / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trust deed permitted distributions of income prior to 30 June in each financial year.' 'Whether payments into bank accounts held jointly by the appellant and her husband attracted the full and final discharge afforded to the trustee by the trust deed.' 'Whether the trustee owed a duty to notify discretionary objects of the Trust of their entitlement once determined.' 'Whether the trustee was protected by the exemption clause in the trust deed if any breach of duty were established.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because, properly construed, cls 2.1(a) and 6.26 permitted interim distributions of income during the financial year, with the defined term "Income" imposing a quantitative maximum rather than a temporal restriction based on completion of annual accounts. The payments into the joint accounts were dispositive applications or interim distributions of income and attracted the full and final discharge under cl 2.1(a). The trust deed did not expressly or impliedly impose a duty on EYS to notify the appellant directly of her entitlement, and the terms of cl 2.1(a), the effect of payment into a joint bank account, and the practical and business context of the service trust were...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.' "Appellant to pay the respondent's costs."]