20 Nov 2020
The Court granted the vesting order under the Trustee Act because the settlor/trustee was incapacitated, the enduring power of attorney could not effect vesting of land, service on required parties was proper and beneficiaries (and their parents) supported the application, so vesting the property in the named trustees was necessary and appropriate.
13 May 2020
Despite limited medical evidence the Court granted vesting orders under s52 because there was a completed medical capacity form, the joint applicants' evidence of incapacity, beneficiary consent, and counsel's certification that all relevant information and any opposition were disclosed; enduring power of attorney cannot substitute for vesting orders to effect transfer of trustee title.
25 Sept 2019
Because the respondent trustee suffers progressive dementia with an enduring power of attorney invoked and her incapacity prevents proper administration of the trust and sale of trust land, the Court exercises its inherent jurisdiction to remove her as trustee, grants leave to proceed under Part 19, dispenses with service and, under s52 Trustee Act 1956, makes a vesting order in favour of the continuing trustees.
9 Sept 2019
The Court was satisfied on the affidavit evidence that the existing trustees were medically incapacitated and had been replaced, that a vesting order under s 52 was necessary to vest the property in the current trustees, and that commencing the proceedings without notice and granting the order on the papers was appropriate; accordingly the Court made the vesting order.
3 May 2018
On the undisputed affidavit evidence that the respondent is mentally incapacitated and cannot perform trustee or executor duties, and that the applicant holds an enduring power of attorney and has provided sufficient supporting material, the court properly exercised its discretion to dispense with service and a litigation guardian and to grant a vesting order under s52 of the Trustee Act 1956 vesting the specified land and interests away from the incapacitated trustee/executor.
5 Apr 2018
The evidence established that the property was held by the incapacitated trustee and that he lacked capacity; accordingly the court exercised its power under s52 of the Trustee Act 1956 to vest the property in the continuing trustees and concluded that service on the incapacitated trustee was not required.
23 Feb 2017
Given the respondent’s dementia and removal as trustee, the absence of any interest in the trust assets, the consent of beneficiaries and non‑opposition from the appointed property manager, it was necessary and appropriate to vest the respondent's interests in the co‑trustees to enable trustees to deal with the properties; leave to proceed by originating application and dispensing with further service were justified.
23 May 2016
Given uncontested medical evidence of the trustee's severe dementia, the court exercised its discretion to allow commencement by originating application, dispensed with service as it would serve no useful purpose, and pursuant to s52 Trustee Act 1956 vested the trust property in the continuing trustees to enable proper administration and a sale of the asset.
11 Jun 2015
Medical evidence established the settlor/trustee was incapacitated, beneficiaries and successor attorney consented, and statutory power in s 52(1)(b)(i) together with s 43 and the Court's inherent jurisdiction justified vesting the trust property and vesting the settlor's powers in the remaining trustees; accordingly the application to vest title and settlor powers was granted.
3 Dec 2014
Where continuing trustees have validly appointed a replacement trustee under s43 and a co‑trustee is medically incapacitated such that service would serve no useful purpose and cause distress, the Court may, relying on r6.8(c) and its inherent jurisdiction, dispense with service and grant a vesting order under s52 to enable trustees to deal with trust land; an incapacitated co‑trustee has no arguable defence to such a summary vesting application.