McNair v Crossman and Another (2017/27131) [2018] ZAGPJHC 716 (22 February 2018)

McNair v Crossman and Another (2017/27131) [2018] ZAGPJHC 716 (22 February 2018)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish any legal basis for the removal of the respondents as trustees. The founding affidavit was held to be valid and compliant with the regulations. The alleged misjoinder was dismissed as the dispute was personal and not in the respondents' official capacity as trustees. The applicant's complaints were found to arise from personal and business disputes unrelated to the administration of the trust. There was no evidence that the respondents' conduct imperiled the trust property or its administration, nor that removal would be in the interests of the trust or its beneficiaries. The trust was properly administered, beneficiaries received...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPJHC 716
Parties
Applicant: Gillian Claire McNair; Respondent: Gerald Sydney Crossman; Respondent: Warren John Fletcher
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 February 2018
Case Number
2017/27131
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
TP Mudau
Legal Topics
Trustee Removal, Trust Property Control Act, Fiduciary Duties, Conflict of Interest
Civil Procedure Land and Property Trustee Removal Trust Property Control Act Fiduciary Duties Conflict of Interest

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gillian Claire McNair

Applicant

Gerald Sydney Crossman

Respondent

Warren John Fletcher

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the founding affidavit is valid and complies with the regulations governing oaths and affirmations.
  2. 2 Whether there is a misjoinder due to the second respondent being cited in his personal rather than official capacity.
  3. 3 Whether the conduct of the respondents as co-trustees imperils the trust property or its administration, justifying removal under section 20(1) of the Trust Property Control Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish any legal basis for the removal of the respondents as trustees. The founding affidavit was held to be valid and compliant with the regulations. The alleged misjoinder was dismissed as the dispute was personal and not in the respondents' official capacity as trustees. The applicant's complaints were found to arise from personal and business disputes unrelated to the administration of the trust. There was no evidence that the respondents' conduct imperiled the trust property or its administration, nor that removal would be in the interests of the trust or its beneficiaries. The trust was properly administered, beneficiaries received...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The points in limine are dismissed with costs.
  • The application for removal of the respondents as trustees is dismissed with costs.