Morrison v Lainson [2006] NSWSC 1347

Morrison v Lainson [2006] NSWSC 1347

It was not equitable to require Douglas Roy Lainson to bear alone the trustees’ costs of litigation arising from his contract for sale to Melic, as the effective cause of those expenses was Melic’s own conduct in failing to complete, and Douglas was entitled by law to contract with Melic. The proceeds of sale should be distributed according to the established beneficial interests: three-eighths each to Charles and Douglas, and one-quarter to the estate of Nora Lainson.

Parties
Plaintiff: Stanley Arthur Morrison; Plaintiff: Ron Dean-Willcocks; Defendant: Charles William Milton Lainson; Defendant: Douglas Roy Lainson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings Directions Relating to Trust Property / Final Judgment Distribution of Trust Proceeds
Outcome
Orders made for distribution of proceeds of sale to beneficiaries according to their respective interests; trustees’ costs to be paid out of sale funds; liberty to apply granted.
Legal Topics
Trustee Indemnity, Distribution of Trust Property, Section 66 G Conveyancing Act, Costs and Equitable Apportionment
Equity Trusts Trustee Indemnity Distribution of Trust Property Section 66 G Conveyancing Act Costs and Equitable Apportionment

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stanley Arthur Morrison

Plaintiff

Ron Dean-Willcocks

Plaintiff

Charles William Milton Lainson

Defendant

Douglas Roy Lainson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equity Proceedings Directions Relating to Trust Property / Final Judgment Distribution of Trust Proceeds

Legal Issues

  1. 1 How should the proceeds of sale of land held on trust be distributed among beneficiaries?
  2. 2 Should the costs associated with litigation arising from a beneficiary's contract for sale of his interest be borne solely by that beneficiary or shared?
  3. 3 What is the proper application of trustee indemnity and equitable apportionment of expenses among beneficiaries under s 66G Conveyancing Act 1919?

Ratio Decidendi

It was not equitable to require Douglas Roy Lainson to bear alone the trustees’ costs of litigation arising from his contract for sale to Melic, as the effective cause of those expenses was Melic’s own conduct in failing to complete, and Douglas was entitled by law to contract with Melic. The proceeds of sale should be distributed according to the established beneficial interests: three-eighths each to Charles and Douglas, and one-quarter to the estate of Nora Lainson.

Court Disposition

Orders made for distribution of proceeds of sale to beneficiaries according to their respective interests; trustees’ costs to be paid out of sale funds; liberty to apply granted.

Orders

  • Declaration that the balance of proceeds of sale of land be apportioned: Charles William Milton Lainson three-eighths, Douglas Roy Lainson three-eighths, estate of the late Nora Lainson one quarter.
  • Order for distribution of proceeds in accordance with the above declaration.