Trustee Act s 81 - Advantageous Dealings
29Trustee Act, s 81 enables the Court to confer additional powers on the Trustee to enable the Trustee to enter into transactions that are expedient in the management of Trust property. It provides:
"81 Advantageous dealings
(1) Where in the management or administration of any property vested in trustees, any sale, lease, mortgage, surrender, release, or disposition, or any purchase, investment, acquisition, expenditure, or transaction, is in the opinion of the Court expedient, but the same cannot be effected by reason of the absence of any power for that purpose vested in the trustees by the instrument, if any, creating the trust, or by law, the Court:
(a) may by order confer upon the trustees, either generally or in any particular instance, the necessary power for the purpose, on such terms, and subject to such provisions and conditions, including adjustment of the respective rights of the beneficiaries, as the Court may think fit, and
(b) may direct in what manner any money authorised to be expended, and the costs of any transaction, are to be paid or borne as between capital and income.
(2) The provisions of subsection (1) shall be deemed to empower the Court, where it is satisfied that an alteration whether by extension or otherwise of the trusts or powers conferred on the trustees by the trust instrument, if any, creating the trust, or by law is expedient, to authorise the trustees to do or abstain from doing any act or thing which if done or omitted by them without the authorisation of the Court or the consent of the beneficiaries would be a breach of trust, and in particular the Court may authorise the trustees:
(a) to sell trust property, notwithstanding that the terms or consideration for the sale may not be within any statutory powers of the trustees, or within the terms of the instrument, if any, creating the trust, or may be forbidden by that instrument,
(b) to postpone the sale of trust property,
(c) to carry on any business forming part of the trust property during any period for which a sale may be postponed,
(d) to employ capital money subject to the trust in any business which the trustees are authorised by the instrument, if any, creating the trust or by law to carry on.
(3) The Court may from time to time rescind or vary any order made under this section, or may make any new or further order.
(4) The powers of the Court under this section shall be in addition to the powers of the Court under its general administrative jurisdiction and under this or any other Act.
(5) This section applies to trusts created either before or after the commencement of this Act."
30The Trustee seeks an order under Trustee Act, s 81(1) conferring on the Trustee the power to amend the terms of the Trust instrument to confer on the Trustee the powers set out in the form of the Draft Deed Poll.
31Authority has established the scope of Trustee Act, s 81, which was generally modelled upon the Trustee Act 1925 (UK), s 57. In Stein v Sybmore Holdings Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 1004 ("Stein") Campbell J has gathered and analysed the principal authorities on the operation of this section relevant to the present application: Stein at [37] - [44].
32His analysis shows the following elements. First, it is necessary to identify a "sale, lease, mortgage, surrender, release, or disposition, or any purchase, investment, acquisition, expenditure or transaction", which is proposed (described in these reasons as "the proposed dealing"): Stein at [37]. Secondly, it is necessary to enquire whether the proposed dealing is in the Court's opinion "expedient" in the management or administration of any property vested in trustees: Stein at [38] - [42] and Ku-ring-gai Municipal Council v the Attorney -General (1954) 55 SR (NSW) 65 ("Ku-ring-gai") at 74. And thirdly, the proposed dealing must be one which "cannot be effected by reason of the absence of any power for that purpose vested in the trustees by the instrument, if any, creating the trust, or by law".
33The authorities commonly discuss an additional requirement for s 81 orders: that "a question has arisen in the management or administration of property invested in the trustee": Ku-ring-gai, at 74. I agree with Campbell J's obiter comments in Stein at [43] that this additional requirement is one "derived by a process of construction [of s 81] that I cannot see but that I am bound to follow". In Stein Campbell J commented that a "question" here must really be the same as a "problem": Stein at [43]. If Trustee Act, s 81 includes such a prerequisite, I am satisfied that there is the necessary "question" here in the sense of a problem, which prompted the Trustee to make this application and moreover that such a question arose in the management or administration of property vested in the Trustee. This, so called, additional requirement needs no further consideration.
34The Court retains a discretion not to make the orders: Stein at [65]. This is clear from the language of Trustee Act s 81 ("the Court may") even if the requirements of the section are satisfied. In Stein Campbell J stated that commonly there is a "considerable, and perhaps total, overlap between factors that established expediency, and the factors that lead a Court to decide that as a matter of discretion it was appropriate to exercise the power under s 81". Campbell J said in Stein that he could only think of one circumstance in which a Court would be likely to hold that it was "expedient" in the s 81 sense for a particular dealing to be entered into, and that the trustee lacked the power to enter that dealing, but in the exercise of that discretion the Court would not give power for that dealing to take place: Stein at [65]. That example was if there were "some means, other than the making of an order under s 81 by which the same practical objective could be achieved as would be achieved if the power to enter a deal were conferred". It was not suggested in this case that any such discretionary factors arise.
35At the highest level, Courts have emphasised the broad scope of Trustee Act, s 81 when assessing whether a proposed dealing is "expedient". In Riddle v Riddle (1952) 85 CLR 202 at 214, Dixon J, as his Honour then was, said that s 81 was "conferring very large and important powers on the Court" which depend upon the Court's opinion of what is "expedient" a "criterion of widest and most flexible kind". And his Honour emphasised the practical nature of the Court's responsibility in the exercise of the power under s 81 (at 214) "The responsibilities imposed involve business and financial considerations, but responsibilities of that description have always fallen on Courts of administration".
36For the reasons which follow each of the elements of s 81 is satisfied in this case.