Le Grange and Another v Le Grange Family Trust and Others (7021/2016) [2017] ZAKZPHC 2 (7 February 2017)
The court found that the trust deed permitted majority decisions and that the fourth trustee was notified and chose to abstain, thus participating in the decision-making process. The resolutions authorising litigation and instructing attorneys were valid and binding on the trust. The applicants' objections were formal rather than substantive, as the fourth trustee had notice and an opportunity to participate. The court held that the applicants were entitled to enforce the original settlement agreement, as the purported variation agreement was not validly concluded; the third respondent had not signed the variation agreement before the applicants withdrew it, and thus no binding variation...
- Citation
- [2017] ZAKZPHC 2
- Parties
- Applicant: Louis Le Grange; Applicant: Beulah Le Grange; Respondent: The Louis and Andre Le Grange Family Trust No. 1562/95/PMB; Respondent: Francois Le Grange Nomino Officio; Respondent: Jacqueline Le Grange Nomino Officio; Respondent: Hendrik Mentz Nomino Officio; Respondent: The Master of the High Court Pietermaritzburg
- Court
- Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 7 February 2017
- Case Number
- 7021/2016
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Order After Opposed Application and Counter Application
- Outcome
- Application granted; counter-application dismissed with costs.
- Judges
- D Pillay
- Legal Topics
- Trustee Standing, Trust Deed Interpretation, Settlement Agreement Enforcement, Variation Agreement, Fiduciary Duties
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Louis Le Grange
Applicant
Beulah Le Grange
Applicant
The Louis and Andre Le Grange Family Trust No. 1562/95/PMB
Respondent
Francois Le Grange Nomino Officio
Respondent
Jacqueline Le Grange Nomino Officio
Respondent
Hendrik Mentz Nomino Officio
Respondent
The Master of the High Court Pietermaritzburg
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Order After Opposed Application and Counter Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trustees of the first respondent had authority to oppose the application and launch a counter-application.
- 2 Whether the resolutions taken by the trustees were valid and binding on the trust.
- 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to enforce the settlement agreement for monthly payments.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the trust deed permitted majority decisions and that the fourth trustee was notified and chose to abstain, thus participating in the decision-making process. The resolutions authorising litigation and instructing attorneys were valid and binding on the trust. The applicants' objections were formal rather than substantive, as the fourth trustee had notice and an opportunity to participate. The court held that the applicants were entitled to enforce the original settlement agreement, as the purported variation agreement was not validly concluded; the third respondent had not signed the variation agreement before the applicants withdrew it, and thus no binding variation...
Court Disposition
Application granted; counter-application dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The first respondent is ordered to pay the first and second applicants jointly R15,000.00 per month for living costs from 30 June 2012 until the death of the surviving applicant, with annual escalation of 10% from 31 January 2013.
- Interest a tempore morae on all late payments: 15.50% per annum from 19 November 2011 to 31 July 2014; 9% per annum from 1 August 2014 to 23 February 2016; 10.25% per annum from 1 March 2016 onwards.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment