9 Aug 2023
Because all adult beneficiaries consented, the extension relates only to future persons contemplated by s 124(2)(c), the proposed variation does not reduce or remove any vested interest, and expert evidence shows the extension mitigates a substantial tax liability without detriment to beneficiaries, the court lawfully approved the extension of the distribution date under s 124.
15 Aug 2022
The Court approved the variation because there is a negligible likelihood of further younger grandchildren who would benefit under the original deed, all living beneficiaries consent, the proposed deed contains mandatory protections (indemnity, executor/successor provisions) for any potential unborn/great-grandchildren, the variation preserves the settlor's requirement of equality and does not extinguish any vested interest; the practical and administrative benefits and likely greater utility of earlier distribution to grandchildren outweigh the settlor's desire for prolonged vesting.
27 May 2022
The Court exercised its discretion under s 124 Trusts Act 2019 and approved the resettlement because the proposed JJ Family Trust preserved or extended the interests of minor, unborn and future beneficiaries (notably by adding great‑grandchildren as discretionary beneficiaries with capital and income interests), did not reduce or remove any vested interest, and the benefits (flexibility of capital use, ability to bring forward distributions, mitigation of inequitable outcomes) outweighed any detriment; accordingly consent was given and costs ordered payable from the trust fund.
29 Apr 2022
The application to dispense with service on the three charities was declined because there is uncertainty about the charities' identity and entitlement, prior authorities required consultation or service of the charities, and it was not just to exclude them; the Court therefore directed service on the charities and allowed conditional email service for contingent beneficiaries.
24 Mar 2022
Changed circumstances (presence of trading assets, unforeseeable tax exposure on vesting) justified court approval of the proposed trust variations under s124 because the variations do not extinguish any vested interest, the detriment to minors is minimal while the benefits (tax mitigation, preservation of asset protection, ability to apply capital for welfare) are substantial, and waiver of the consent of the remote adult beneficiary under s125 is appropriate; the court therefore approved the amended trust deeds (as amended by Counsel to assist) and ordered the applicants to pay costs of Cou…
10 Dec 2021
Leave to use the originating application procedure was granted because the application was appropriately dealt with by that procedure as it is in the interests of justice (ensuring a just, speedy and inexpensive determination), the Court may appoint an independent solicitor to represent unborn beneficiaries, and conditional service by email with required acknowledgements was appropriate to avoid unnecessary costs.
8 Apr 2021
Where a trust includes beneficiaries who lack capacity or are future/contingent within s124(2), the court must make an order under s124 approving the variation for those beneficiaries; s125 cannot be used to circumvent the s124 approval requirement, although in practice the statutory tests overlap; because the proposed variations were administrative, consistent with the settlor's intentions and did not affect vested interests, the court approved the variations under s124 and granted a waiver under s125 for adult discretionary beneficiaries.
17 Mar 2021
The Court will approve the proposed variations because, after considering the s124 factors and independent counsel reports, the variations do not reduce or remove any vested interests of the minors, unborn or contingent beneficiaries and confer material benefits (including certainty, removal of competing beneficiaries, and protection from further litigation); removal of remote charitable beneficiary class is permitted given its negligible practical prospect of benefit.
7 Aug 2020
Because the sole beneficiaries consented, the trust produced minimal income from capital of $116,000, and winding up and equal capital distribution plainly advanced the beneficiaries' interests and accorded with the settlor's purpose, the court exercised its power under s64A Trustee Act 1956 to authorise winding up and distribution; trustees' costs ordered payable from trust assets prior to distribution.
28 May 2020
Given the written consents (including parental consents for minors), the equitable allocation of assets under the settlement, the benefits to the trust and beneficiaries (reduced cost, stress and reputational harm), and absence of contest, the court will approve the variation under s 64A and direct the trustees under s 66 to effect the deed of settlement transfers and distributions.