JPD as Guardian v DMS as Trustee [2022] QSC 181

1. The application in matter 161/22, to remove the existing trustee and executor and in substitution appoint Renee Anne Bennett, is granted on the terms ordered in order 6 hereof.
2. I will hear the parties as to costs at 9am 2 September 2022.
3. The part of this decision's reasons identifying the parties in the coversheet and the content of order 6 hereof be redacted in any publication of these reasons and orders, except for their publication between or to the parties, Renee Anne Bennett and a Court and for the purpose of Renee Anne Bennett assuming and performing her role as administrator and trustee.
4. Liberty to apply on the giving of two business days notice in writing.

[2] Matter 161/22 Court doc 10 Ex 36.

[3] Elovalis v Elovalis [2008] WASCA 141 [30], [40].

[4] [1982] Qd R 196.

[5] [1982] Qd R 196, 200.

[6] See, eg, Matter 161/22 Court doc 3 Ex JPD1 at p 12 [5.1] and the broad power relating to maintenance and advancement at pp 19-20 [2.1].

[7] Hartigan Nominess P/L v Rydge (1992) 29 NSWLR 405, 431.

[8] Hartigan Nominess P/L v Rydge (1992) 29 NSWLR 405, 427.

[9] See, for example, the reasoning relating to superannuation trustees in Finch v Telstra Super Pty Ltd [2010] HCA 36; (2010) 242 CLR 254, 280-281.

[10] Letterstedt v Broers (1884) 9 AC 371, 387.

[11] [1936] HCA 13; (1936) 54 CLR 572.

[12] [1936] HCA 13; (1936) 54 CLR 572, 580-581.

[14] I say "purported" because her decision-making about the extent and nature of the funding provided has not always been consultative of the father.

[15] Hartigan Nominees Pty Ltd v Rydge (1992) 29 NSWLR 405, 427.

[16] Matter 161/22 Court doc 10 Ex DMS56.

[17] Matter 161/22 Court doc 10 Ex DMS57.

[18] Matter 161/22 Court doc 10 [170].

[19] Matter 161/22 Court doc 10 Ex DMS88.

[20] Matter 161/22 Court doc 10 [173].

[21] Matter 161/22 Court doc 10 [174].

[23] Matter 161/22 Court doc 10 Ex DMS65.

[24] Matter 161/22 Court doc 10 Ex DMS65.

[25] Matter 161/22 Court doc 3 Ex JPD14.

[26] Matter 161/22 Court doc 3 Ex JPD15.

[28] Matter 161/22 Court doc 3 Ex JPD11.

[31] Matter 161/22 Court doc 10 Ex DMS30, p 8.

[32] Matter 161/22 Court doc 3 Ex JPD20 [72].

[40] Matter 161/22 Court doc 10 Ex DMS80.

[41] Matter 161/22 Court doc 10 Ex DMS81.

[42] Matter 161/22 Court doc 10 Ex DMS82.

[43] Matter 161/22 Court doc 10 Ex DMS83.

[44] Matter 161/22 Court doc 10 Ex DMS84.

[45] Matter 161/22 Court doc 3 Ex JPD17.

[46] Matter 161/22 Court doc 10 [162]; also see matter 211/22 Court doc 2 [32].

[48] [1982] Qd R 196, 206.

[49] [1982] Qd R 196, 206; see also Benson v Deloraine Pty Ltd (2015) 13 ASTLR 156. Cf TS (by his tutor PS) v Malouf (2010) 5 ASTLR 251.

[50] Titterton v Oates (1998) 143 FLR 467, 481.

[52] Matter 161/22 Court doc 3 Ex JPD9, pp 118-126.

[54] Matter 211/22 Court doc 7, pp 2-3.

[57] Matter 211/22 Court doc 2 Ex DMS9.

[58] For instance, the market appraisal of 11 April 2022 spoke without particularity of the kind previously given of the property "being run into the ground" (Matter 211/22 Court doc 2 Ex DMS15) and the author of the rental appraisal of 12 April 2022 declined to give a rental appraisal for the property, "because in its current condition it is not rentable" (Matter 211/22 Court doc 2 Ex DMS16), whereas a previous such appraisal listed the works necessary for the property to be leased (Matter 211/22 Court doc 2 Ex DMS14).

[59] See, eg, exhibit 3 at the hearing (a very recent inspection report) and exhibits DMS6, 7 and 8 to Court doc 2 in matter 211/22 (the complaints of the pool service company).

[60] Matter 161/22 Court doc 3 Ex JPD3.

[63] Matter 161/22 court doc 3 Ex JPD6.

[64] Matter 161/22 Court doc 3 Ex JPD7.

[65] Matter 211/22 Court doc 2, [70].

[66] Matter 161/22 Court doc 3 Ex JPD14, p 143.

[67] See, eg, Matter 211/22 Court doc 2, [70].

[70] [2002] 3 NZLR 826, 836 [31].

[71] [2008] HCA 42; (2008) 237 CLR 66.

[72] [2008] HCA 42; (2008) 237 CLR 66, 83 [36].

[73] Noosa Shire Council v TM Burke Estates Pty Ltd [2000] 1 Qd R 398.

[74] Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission [1992] HCA 10; (1992) 175 CLR 564, 581-582; SZBYR v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2007) 235 ALR 609, 618 [28].

[75] Macedonian Church v Eminence Petar [2008] HCA 42; (2008) 237 CLR 66, 95.

[76] See Harrison v Mills [1976] 1 NSWLR 42, 44-45; Neagle v Rimmington [2002] 3 NZLR 826, 833.

[77] [2014] QSC 152.

[78] [2015] QSC 4.

[79] [2015] QSC 372.

[80] See also Re GARDA Capital; Re GARDA Funds Management [2019] QSC 279.

[81] Cf Buckingham v Buckingham [2020] QSC 230.