Hughes v Blacklow & Anor [2011] NSWSC 1546

Hughes v Blacklow & Anor [2011] NSWSC 1546

The administration of the trust was stultified by the first defendant's continued rent-free occupation of the trust property and failure to co-operate in its sale, placing him in clear breach of his duties as trustee; removal was necessary so the trust could be properly executed, the plaintiff could act as sole trustee, and the property could be sold and distributed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceeding Concerning Removal and Appointment of Trustee of Estate Trust / Principal Judgment and Final Orders
Outcome
First defendant removed as trustee; plaintiff reappointed as sole trustee and empowered to sell the property; indemnity costs ordered against the first defendant.
Legal Topics
['removal of Trustee' 'appointment of Sole Trustee' 'administration of Estate' 'trust Property Sale' 'trustee Fiduciary Duties' 'indemnity Costs']
['equity' 'trusts' 'succession'] ['removal of Trustee' 'appointment of Sole Trustee' 'administration of Estate' 'trust Property Sale' 'trustee Fiduciary Duties' 'indemnity Costs']

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

Equity Proceeding Concerning Removal and Appointment of Trustee of Estate Trust / Principal Judgment and Final Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first defendant should be removed as trustee of the estate of the late Alma Blacklow.' 'Whether the plaintiff should be reappointed as sole trustee and vested with power to sell the Canley Vale property.' "Whether the first defendant should pay the plaintiff's costs on the indemnity basis and have those costs deducted from his share of sale proceeds."]

Ratio Decidendi

The administration of the trust was stultified by the first defendant's continued rent-free occupation of the trust property and failure to co-operate in its sale, placing him in clear breach of his duties as trustee; removal was necessary so the trust could be properly executed, the plaintiff could act as sole trustee, and the property could be sold and distributed.

Court Disposition

First defendant removed as trustee; plaintiff reappointed as sole trustee and empowered to sell the property; indemnity costs ordered against the first defendant.

Orders

  • ['The first defendant be removed as trustee of the estate of the late Alma Blacklow.' 'Pursuant to s 70(1) of the Trustee Act 1925, the plaintiff be reappointed as the sole trustee for the property referred to in para 1 of the amended summons in accordance with the trusts established in the will of the late Alma...