Batten v Salier [2023] NSWSC 378 | Case summary

Batten v Salier [2023] NSWSC 378 | Case summary | Zoe

HIS HONOUR: Laura Angius ("the deceased") died between 3 January 2012 and 4 January 2012 aged 79 years, leaving an undated "informal" will admitted to probate in solemn form by a grant of letters of administration to Gordon A Salier, the first defendant in these proceedings, issued on 1 April 2014 pursuant to reasons for judgment published by Hallen J as Estate of Laura Angius; Angius v Angius [2013] NSWSC 1895 on 17 December 2013. The letters of administration identify the date of the will as 27 April 2007.
The plaintiff (Sean Robert Batten) is a grandson of the deceased, by the deceased's daughter, Gianna (Jenny) Angius. He was born in April 2004 and attained his majority in April 2022. He is named in the will of the deceased as beneficiary of a gift of property known as 19/8 Allen Street, Waterloo, in the State of New South Wales. The title to that property remains registered in the name of the first defendant, subject to any orders made in the current proceedings.
In reasons for judgment, on a construction suit, published on 1 July 2015 as Gordon Salier v Robert Angius [2015] NSWSC 853, Ball J determined (by orders set forth in paragraph [94] (7)-(8), supported by reasons articulated at paragraphs [76]-[83]) the nature of the plaintiff's gift in terms to the following effect: "The property at 19/8 Allen Street, Waterloo is to be held by the first defendant on trust for the fourth defendant until the fourth defendant turns 25, at which time the property is to be transferred to him. The income derived from the property is to be accumulated until the fourth defendant turns 18, at which time amount accumulated and future income is to be paid to the fourth defendant as and when it is earned."
In the proceedings before Ball J, "the first defendant" was the present plaintiff's uncle, the second defendant in the current proceedings (Robert Angius). The fourth defendant in the proceedings before Ball J is the plaintiff in the present proceedings.
The present proceedings were commenced by a summons filed on 17 October 2022 and amended on 17 February 2023. In his amended summons, the plaintiff seeks: 1. a declaration that he is entitled (upon invocation of the rule in Saunders v Vautier (1841) 4 Beav 115; 49 ER 282; affirmed (1841) Cr & Ph 240; 41 ER 482 to terminate the trust for which the deceased's will provided in his favour, with consequential orders (including orders under rule 54.3 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 NSW) for the transfer of the property, any accumulated income on the property, and such, if any, other asset that may be held on trust in connection with or arising from the property. 2. in the alternative, orders under s 70 of the Trustee Act 1925 NSW (or the inherent jurisdiction of the Court) for the removal of the second defendant as trustee of the trust and the appointment, instead, of the plaintiff's sister (Gabrielle Laura Angius) as trustee for him until he attains the age of 25 years.
The plaintiff's contradictor, if any, is the second defendant. In his judgment of 1 July 2015 Ball J (at [65]-[67]) determined, in effect, that the second defendant was the deceased's residuary beneficiary upon a proper construction of the will.
Both the first defendant and the second defendant have filed submitting appearances in these proceedings. The plaintiff's claims for relief are not opposed.
In support of the plaintiff's primary claim for relief the following features of the case are noted: 1. The plaintiff ceased to be under any form of disability when, at the age of 18 years, he attained his majority. 2. Under the deceased's will the plaintiff, having attained his majority, is absolutely entitled to all income, including accrued income, on the property. 3. Although the will is expressed to defer the plaintiff's full enjoyment of the property until he attains the age of 25 years, his entitlement to the property is not conditional upon his attainment of that age. 4. The party who would stand to benefit from a finding that the plaintiff's entitlement to the property is conditional upon his attaining the age of 25 years (the second defendant) does not advance such a case, but rather submits to the orders of the Court.
In CPT Custodian Pty Limited v Commissioner of State Revenue (2005) 224 CLR 98 at 119 [47], the High Court of Australia recognised as the modern formulation of the rule in Saunders v Vautier the following statement in Thomas on Powers (1998): "Under the rule in Saunders v Vautier, an adult beneficiary (or number of adult beneficiaries acting together) who has (or between them have) an absolute, vested and indefeasible interest in the capital and income of property [of a trust] may at any time require the transfer of the property to him (or them) and may terminate any accumulation."
In my opinion, the plaintiff is entitled to relief in the nature of that sought in his primary claim for relief because, upon a proper construction of the deceased's will, he has an absolute vested and indefeasible interest in the capital and income of the trust property held for his benefit.
In these circumstances, it is not necessary to consider whether, if the trust were to continue in operation, the second defendant should be displaced as trustee of the trust.
Were it necessary to make a determination of the plaintiff's alternative claim for relief, I would be minded to accede to that claim.
The primary rule governing identification of a trustee is that the Court is guided by the welfare of the beneficiary as the dominant consideration: Miller v Cameron (1936) 54 CLR 572 at 575, 579, 580 and 581.
It is not necessary to explore in these reasons for judgment particular reasons advanced by the plaintiff for displacement of the second defendant as trustee. It is sufficient to note that questions have been raised by the plaintiff as to the suitability of the second defendant to act as trustee and, if the second defendant were to be displaced as trustee, there is evidence of the suitability and consent of the plaintiff's sister to act as trustee.
In the circumstances outlined in these reasons, the appropriate course is to make orders to the following effect. 1. DECLARE that the plaintiff is, and has been since he turned 18 years of age in April 2022, entitled to require the termination of the trust created by the will of the deceased (undated, but stated to be dated 27 April 2007 in the grant of letters of administration with the will annexed in solemn form issued on 1 April 2014) in respect of the gift to him of the property at 19 Allen Street, Waterloo, NSW, being lot 19 in strata plan 84149 ("the Property") and the income thereof ("the Trust"), and to call for the transfer to him of the Property, the income (including accrued income), and such, if any, other asset of the Trust. 2. ORDER, pursuant to rule 54.3 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 NSW, that the first defendant transfer the Property, income and any other asset of the trust to the plaintiff. 3. NOTE that no orders are made as to the costs of the proceedings, to the intent that each party pay or bear his own costs of the proceedings, without prejudice to such (if any) entitlement the first defendant may have to recourse to assets of the estate of the deceased. 4. RESERVE to any party liberty to apply in these proceedings for consequential or other relief for the purpose of implementation of these orders. 5. ORDER that these orders be entered forthwith.

Batten v Salier

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (4 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (5)