Shevel v Shevel (57607/16) [2018] ZAGPPHC 245 (23 January 2018)

Shevel v Shevel (57607/16) [2018] ZAGPPHC 245 (23 January 2018)

The court found that the arrangement between the company and the Headache Clinic, whereby the property was used rent-free, did not constitute a breach of fiduciary duty by the respondent. The financial benefit alleged by the applicant had never formed part of the trust fund, and the trustees had not undertaken to protect such benefit under the trust deed. The respondent's conduct was not dishonest, grossly inefficient, or untrustworthy, nor did it imperil the trust property or its administration. The applicant failed to demonstrate that the respondent acquired any personal benefit at the expense of the beneficiaries. Accordingly, the requirements for removal under section 20(1) of the...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 245
Parties
Applicant: Daniel Elyan Shevel; Respondent: Elliot Jack Shevel
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 January 2018
Case Number
57607/16
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Removal of Trustee Under Section 20 of the Trust Property Control Act
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Hughes
Legal Topics
Trustee Removal, Fiduciary Duty, Trust Property Control Act, Conflict of Interest
Land and Property Civil Procedure Trustee Removal Fiduciary Duty Trust Property Control Act 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Elyan Shevel

Applicant

Elliot Jack Shevel

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Removal of Trustee Under Section 20 of the Trust Property Control Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent should be removed as trustee of the JSE Share Trust under section 20 of the Trust Property Control Act.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's conduct amounted to dishonesty, gross inefficiency, or untrustworthiness warranting removal.
  3. 3 Whether the arrangement between the company and the Headache Clinic was detrimental to the interests of the trust and its beneficiaries.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arrangement between the company and the Headache Clinic, whereby the property was used rent-free, did not constitute a breach of fiduciary duty by the respondent. The financial benefit alleged by the applicant had never formed part of the trust fund, and the trustees had not undertaken to protect such benefit under the trust deed. The respondent's conduct was not dishonest, grossly inefficient, or untrustworthy, nor did it imperil the trust property or its administration. The applicant failed to demonstrate that the respondent acquired any personal benefit at the expense of the beneficiaries. Accordingly, the requirements for removal under section 20(1) of the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application to remove the respondent as trustee of the JSE Share Trust (IT6957/00) is dismissed with costs.