CASSEGRAIN v CASSEGRAIN & ANOR [1999] NSWSC 1165

CASSEGRAIN v CASSEGRAIN & ANOR [1999] NSWSC 1165

The plaintiffs were left without adequate provision for their proper maintenance and advancement in life, not in value but in the deprivation of control over their shareholdings and trust interests due to the unreviewable discretion given to trustees with whom they had established and ongoing conflict. Adequate provision requires that trustees' exercise of powers—including voting, transfers, and trust decisions—be subject to the written direction of the majority of the testatrix's children. Orders accordingly made under s.7 of the Family Provision Act 1982.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 December 1999
Procedural Posture
Family Provision Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Provision ordered for all plaintiffs by controlling exercise of trustees' powers through requirement for majority children direction; contribution required for bank guarantee obligations; interim relief for Catherine Brigette Dunn with leave reserved for further application.
Legal Topics
['family Provision' 'testamentary Trusts' 'shareholder Rights' 'trustee Powers' 'will Construction']
['succession Law' 'equity'] ['family Provision' 'testamentary Trusts' 'shareholder Rights' 'trustee Powers' 'will Construction']

Case Brief

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

Family Provision Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether adequate provision was made for the plaintiffs out of the estate of the testatrix under the Family Provision Act 1982' 'Appropriate method and scale of provision for the plaintiffs given family and business context' 'Whether current trustees (Claude and Anne-Marie) were suitable persons to exercise discretionary powers under the trust and control voting of estate shares given conflicts']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs were left without adequate provision for their proper maintenance and advancement in life, not in value but in the deprivation of control over their shareholdings and trust interests due to the unreviewable discretion given to trustees with whom they had established and ongoing conflict. Adequate provision requires that trustees' exercise of powers—including voting, transfers, and trust decisions—be subject to the written direction of the majority of the testatrix's children. Orders accordingly made under s.7 of the Family Provision Act 1982.

Court Disposition

Provision ordered for all plaintiffs by controlling exercise of trustees' powers through requirement for majority children direction; contribution required for bank guarantee obligations; interim relief for Catherine Brigette Dunn with leave reserved for further application.

Orders

  • ['Trustees must exercise powers conferred by cl.12(iii) and 12(iv) of the will, including management of Expressway Spares Pty Ltd shares, only according to written direction of a majority of the surviving children of the testatrix; may not act otherwise.' 'Each plaintiff must contribute to liability arising under...