The Act engages several legal concepts central to real property and trusts law. The first is vesting in fee simple. Section 2(1) vests the Schedule One land in the trustees for Wesley College “for an estate in fee simple freed and discharged from all trusts affecting the land immediately before the commencement of this Act.” Fee simple is the largest estate known to the common law; the trustees become absolute legal owners, subject only to the trusts declared in s.2(2). The phrase “freed and discharged” indicates that any prior equitable interests, whether resulting, implied, or constructive, are extinguished. This is a statutory resettlement of the land.

The second concept is trust for use and benefit. Sections 2(2) and 3(1)(b) each declare that the relevant trustees shall hold the land on the same trusts as those for the use and benefit of the College governing bodies (The Principal and Councillors of Wesley College; The Warden and Fellows of Saint Paul’s College) as declared in their respective indentures of subgrant. These are not charitable trusts in the conventional public charitable sense but appear to be trusts for the colleges as unincorporated bodies. The indentures themselves contain provisos and conditions that can cause the trusts to become void, cease, and determine. The Act preserves those provisos but does not identify them. Anyone relying on the Act must therefore locate and read the 1924 and 1926 indentures.

Third is right of way. Sections 2(3) and 3(2) create easements by force of statute, not by grant or reservation. The statutory language overrides any inconsistent instrument. The rights are expressed in very broad terms: the class of beneficiaries includes not only the trustees but also college officers, students, tradesmen, servants, visitors, and any person authorised by the trustees. The scope extends to horses, cattle, carriages, motor cars, and “other vehicles of any description.” The right is exercisable at all times day or night. This is an unusually wide easement typical of mid‑20th century legislation designed to resolve access disputes on university land.

Fourth is modified subgrant. Section 3(1)(a) deems the 1924 indenture to have subgranted the land described in Schedule Three instead of whatever land it originally described. This is a statutory rectification that validates the historical position. The plan on the original indenture is deemed omitted. This avoids the need for a formal deed of variation or court order and binds all parties retrospectively from commencement.

Fifth is saving provision. Section 4 preserves s.7 of the University and College Lands and Victoria Park Act 1924-1937, except to the extent that s.3(1) operates. That provision likely contains further restrictions or rights affecting the land. The Act does not set out that section’s content, so cross‑referencing is necessary.

Sixth are Schedules One to Five, which contain metes and bounds descriptions using imperial measurements (roods, perches, links, feet, inches, bearings). Many dimensions are stated as “a little more or less,” indicating a tolerance for survey inaccuracies. The descriptions reference Crown grants (Volume 1375 Folio 60, Volume 2352 Folio 207), parish boundaries (Parish of Petersham, County of Cumberland), and physical features such as stone pillars, eaves gutters, and fenced lines. These are critical for identifying the exact parcels. Any boundary dispute would likely turn on the precision of these survey descriptions and the identification of now‑lost physical monuments.

The Act directly affects the persons and entities named in its operative provisions, as well as a wider class of landholders and users on the University of Sydney’s Camperdown/Darlington campus. The primary affected classes are fourfold.

Trustees for Wesley College - defined in s.2(4) as the persons who immediately before commencement were the trustees of the land described in the First Schedule to the 1926 indenture of subgrant and of the right of way over the land described in the Second Schedule to that indenture. These trustees are the immediate legal owners of the Schedule One land (s.2(1)) and hold it on the trusts declared in the 1926 indenture. Their duties include ensuring the land is used for the benefit of The Principal and Councillors of Wesley College and that any provisos or conditions in the indenture are observed. Failure to observe those provisos could cause the trusts to become void.

Trustees for Saint Paul’s College - defined in s.3(3) as the persons who immediately before commencement were the trustees of the land described in the First Schedule to the 1924 indenture of subgrant. They hold the Schedule Three land on the trusts declared in that indenture. Their duties mirror those of the Wesley trustees.

The Principal and Councillors of Wesley College - as the beneficiaries of the trusts, they have equitable interests in the land held by the trustees. They can enforce the trusts against the trustees. The right of way in s.2(3) also expressly includes them as entitled persons.

The Warden and Fellows of Saint Paul’s College - similarly, they are the beneficiaries of the trusts for Saint Paul’s College and are entitled to use the rights of way created by s.3(2).

College members and other users - the rights of way expressly extend to “tutors, students, tradesmen, servants and visitors” of each college. This is a broad class. Anyone falling within that description has a statutory right to use the rights of way for access to and from the college lands, regardless of any contrary private agreement.

The University of Sydney - the Act affects the University indirectly. The original Crown grant of 126 acres was to the University. The 1924 and 1926 indentures of subgrant were made between the University and the trustees. The Act modifies those indentures, but the University is not a party to the statutory vesting or trust declarations. However, as the original grantee and a party to the indentures, the University may still have residual rights or obligations, particularly under s.7 of the 1924-1937 Act preserved by s.4.

Adjacent landholders - the land described in Schedules Two, Four, and Five lies within the university precinct, part of Western Avenue and Carillon Avenue. The creation of statutory rights of way burden those parcels. The immediate legal owners (likely the University or other trustees) must permit the rights of way. The boundaries of the rights of way are described with reference to Wesley College land, Women’s College land, and roads. The Women’s College is explicitly referenced in Schedule Three and Five boundary descriptions and may have interests affected by the rights of way.

Surveyors and property professionals - anyone dealing with title to these parcels must incorporate the statutory changes. The Act overrides the old trust structure for the transferred land, removes the old plan from the 1924 indenture, and substitutes new descriptions. Land title examiners, conveyancers, and surveyors must confirm that current titles reflect the Act’s effects.

The Act imposes duties on the trustees and confers rights on a wide range of persons. It does not impose duties on government agencies, the University, or third parties generally.

Duty to hold land on declared trusts - s.2(2) compels the trustees for Wesley College to hold the Schedule One land together with the land described in the First Schedule to the 1926 indenture on the same trusts as those for the use and benefit of The Principal and Councillors of Wesley College. Similarly, s.3(1)(b) compels the trustees for Saint Paul’s College to hold the Schedule Three land on the trusts declared in the 1924 indenture. These duties are mandatory: “shall … hold.” The trusts are not set out in the Act; they are incorporated by reference to the indentures. The duty includes complying with the provisos and conditions in those indentures, including the conditions that may void the trusts.

Duty to give effect to the statutory vesting - s.2(1) vests the fee simple in the Wesley trustees freed from prior trusts. This imposes a negative duty on any former trustee or beneficiary not to interfere with the vesting. The trustees themselves must accept the legal title and hold it subject to the new trusts.

Right of way for Wesley College - s.2(3) grants the trustees for Wesley College, their successors, and every person authorised by them, as well as The Principal and Councillors, tutors, students, tradesmen, servants, and visitors, the full right and liberty to pass and repass over the land described in Schedule Two. The right is to access the right of way in s.2(2) (the one from the 1926 indenture) from and to any land held by the Wesley trustees. The right is not limited to transit: it includes the ability to bring horses, cattle, carriages, motor cars, or other vehicles. It is exercisable at all times by day or night. The phrase “every person authorised by them” gives the trustees power to create sub‑licenses. The right is stated to operate “notwithstanding anything in any instrument contained,” making it absolute over any inconsistent covenant or agreement.

Right of way for Saint Paul’s College - s.3(2) creates an analogous right over the lands described in Schedules Four and Five. The beneficiaries are the trustees for Saint Paul’s College, their successors, authorised persons, and the Warden, Fellows, tutors, students, tradesmen, servants, and visitors of Saint Paul’s College. The right provides access to and from Carillon Avenue from the Schedule Three land. The same broad scope applies. This right is also expressed to operate notwithstanding anything in the Act or any other instrument, giving it paramountcy over inconsistent provisions.

Right to ignore prior trusts - for the Wesley trustees, the vesting in s.2(1) frees the Schedule One land from all trusts affecting it immediately before commencement. This means the trustees are not bound to account to any former beneficiary for that land, and any equitable interests that existed are extinguished.

Right to rely on the modified subgrant - s.3(1)(a) deems the 1924 indenture to have subgranted the Schedule Three land. This operates retrospectively from commencement. The trustees for Saint Paul’s College and their beneficiaries can rely on this modification as if it had always been the case. The original plan is omitted, which may affect boundary evidence.

No general duty on the public - the Act does not impose any obligation on the general public. The rights of way are for the benefit of the colleges; the public has no right to use them unless they fall within the listed classes. The Act does not create a public highway or a public right of way.

Limitation on the duty of the University - the Act does not impose any duty on the University of Sydney to maintain the rights of way, to keep the land open, or to guarantee access. The rights are granted “over” the land, implying the landowner must tolerate the incursions. If the landowner is the University, it must refrain from obstructing the rights.

Enforcement of duties - the Act is silent on enforcement mechanisms. Breach of trust by the trustees would be actionable by the beneficiaries under general trust law. Obstruction of a right of way created by statute is likely actionable as a private nuisance or as breach of an easement. The rights are not tied to any compensation mechanism.

The Act contains no penalty provisions. It does not create any criminal offences, monetary fines, infringement notices, or civil penalties. Nor does it designate any regulator, inspector, or enforcement agency. This is unsurprising for a conveyancing and trust modification statute. Enforcement of the rights and duties created by the Act must be pursued through general law remedies.

Enforcement of trustees’ duties - the core duty of the trustees is to hold the land on the trusts declared in the relevant indentures. If the trustees fail to do so, for example by misapplying the land or failing to observe a proviso, the beneficiaries (The Principal and Councillors of Wesley College or The Warden and Fellows of Saint Paul’s College) can bring proceedings in the Equity Division of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Remedies may include an order to execute the trusts, removal of the trustees, an account of profits, or an injunction. The Act does not specify any limitation period, so the general six‑year or twelve‑year period under the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) may apply depending on the nature of the breach.

Enforcement of rights of way - the statutory rights of way created by ss.2(3) and 3(2) are in the nature of easements. If the servient tenement owner (the owner of the land over which the right is created) obstructs or interferes with the exercise of the right, the grantee may sue in nuisance or trespass. Alternatively, if the right is a legal easement (which it likely is, being created by statute), the grantee may apply for an injunction or damages under the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW). The Act does not provide for summary enforcement, such as removal of obstructions by order of the Local Court, so the remedies are those available under the general law.

No penalty for failure to pay - there is no tax, levy, or fee imposed. The Act does not require registration of the rights of way on title, though prudent conveyancers would do so. Failure to register does not attract a penalty but may affect notice on subsequent purchasers.

No Ombudsman or tribunal - no administrative body is given jurisdiction. Disputes about the scope of the rights of way, the identity of the trustees, or the interpretation of the indentures would be resolved by the Supreme Court. The Act does not mention arbitration or alternative dispute resolution.

Potential for criminal liability under other laws - while the Act itself has no penalties, conduct that interferes with the rights of way could constitute an offence under other statutes. For example, obstructing a lawful user of a right of way might amount to an offence under the Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901 (NSW) if the obstruction involves entry onto land, or under the Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW) if it relates to vehicular access. The Act does not exclude the operation of such laws.

Enforcement risk for beneficiaries - the beneficiaries have a right to enforce the trusts, but the Act does not provide funding for litigation. If the trustees are recalcitrant or the indentures contain ambiguities, beneficiaries may face substantial legal costs. The Act’s silence on cost‑shifting or indemnity means ordinary costs rules apply.

No public interest enforcement - because the Act is private in character, there is no role for the Attorney‑General or a statutory officer to enforce compliance unless a public charitable trust is involved. The trusts are for the use and benefit of the colleges, which are not public charities in the traditional sense but rather educational institutions within the University. The Charitable Trusts Act 1993 (NSW) might apply if the trusts are charitable, but that is not specified in the Act.

Section 4 provides the only explicit interaction: “Except to the extent specified in subsection one of section three of this Act, nothing in this Act shall affect the provisions of section seven of the University and College Lands and Victoria Park Act 1924-1937.” This saving provision preserves s.7 of that earlier Act from being impliedly repealed or affected by the present Act, except where s.3(1) operates (the modification of the Saint Paul’s subgrant). Section 7 of the 1924-1937 Act is not reproduced in this Act, so its content must be separately examined. It likely contains restrictions or conditions on the use of college lands, perhaps relating to the University’s overall control or to the rights of other colleges. The saving means that any inconsistency between s.7 of the earlier Act and a provision of this Act other than s.3(1) would be resolved in favour of the earlier Act. Because s.2 deals with Wesley College and s.3(1) with Saint Paul’s, only the Saint Paul’s trust declaration is allowed to override the earlier s.7. This suggests the drafter intended a careful carve‑out.

The Act also interacts with the general property law of New South Wales, particularly the Conveyancing Act 1919. The vesting in s.2(1) is a statutory transfer of an estate in fee simple. Under s.23B of the Conveyancing Act, a transfer of land must generally be in writing. However, s.2(1) operates as a statutory instrument and likely satisfies the formality requirement because it is an Act of Parliament. The rights of way created by ss.2(3) and 3(2) are express statutory easements. They are not required to be created by deed, and they operate notwithstanding any other instrument. Nevertheless, for title purposes, the rights of way should be recorded on the relevant certificates of title. The Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) governs registration of interests in Torrens system land. The Act does not mandate registration, but the rights are binding on the servient owner from commencement regardless of registration. A subsequent purchaser of the servient land would take subject to the statutory easement if it is a legal interest, even if not recorded, because a statute‑created right is generally not a caveatable interest but rather a right that can be enforced in rem.

The Act potentially interacts with the Univer sity of Sydney Act 1989 (or its predecessors) which governs the University’s powers over its land. The University’s original Crown grant of 1855 is the root of title. The Act does not abrogate that grant; instead, it deals with subgrants from the University. The University’s continuing rights under the original grant might be preserved by the saving provision if s.7 of the 1924-1937 Act touches on the original grant.

Trust law interactions are also significant. The duties of trustees are governed by the Trustee Act 1925 (NSW). The Act does not displace those duties; it incorporates them by reference to the indentures. The power of the trustees to deal with the land, invest, or lease is not expanded by this Act. The indentures themselves may contain specific powers. The proviso relating to the nomination or election of new trustees likely refers to the Trustee Act or the trust instrument. The proviso declaring circumstances in which the trusts become void is crucial: if triggered, the trusts would cease and the land would revert to the University or to the Crown, depending on the indenture terms. The Act does not specify what those circumstances are. It merely preserves them.

The Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) applies. The phrase “trustees for Wesley College” is defined by reference to an external document (the 1926 indenture). Under s.34 of the Interpretation Act, references to a document as existing at a particular time include the document as amended from time to time. However, the Act fixes the identity of the trustees as those immediately before commencement. This may create a static class: future trustees who succeed may not be the same persons, but they would take the legal title under the trust rather than under this statutory definition. The definition may thus be important only for the initial vesting.

The Act does not interact with planning laws, environmental laws, or heritage laws. It does not grant planning approval for any development. Any construction or change of use on the college lands would still require consent under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). The Act is purely about title and trust.

The text presented is the Act as currently in force on the NSW legislation website, with a notation indicating it is the “ University and College Lands (Saint Paul’s College and Wesley College) Act 1957.” There is no indication of any amendments having been made. The Act appears to be a stand‑alone statute that has not been amended, repealed, or consolidated with other legislation. The historical note “ View current version” implies the version shown is the current in‑force version. No amendment tables or historical versions are provided in the source.

The Act’s commencement is dependent on a proclamation by the Governor (s.1(2)). The text does not include the proclamation date. It is possible the Act was proclaimed soon after royal assent in 1957, but without independent verification, the effective date remains unknown from the source. Users should confirm the commencement date from the NSW Government Gazette. If the Act has never been proclaimed, it would not be in force, and the vesting and rights of way would not have taken effect. The notation “inforce” on the website suggests it is in force, but accuracy depends on the website’s curation.

There is no evidence of any later statute that has impliedly amended this Act. The saving provision in s.4 preserves s.7 of the 1924-1937 Act, but that does not constitute an amendment. The Act itself has not been subject to a formal review or sunset clause. It remains on the statute book as a bespoke fix for two colleges.

Given the narrow subject matter, it is unlikely to have been amended. Amendments would only be needed if the boundaries of the land changed, if a college ceased to exist, or if the trust structures were replaced. None of those events are evident. The Act is historical and static.

Legal researchers should treat the Act as a time‑capsule provision: it defines the rights and trusts as they stood in 1957, subject only to the terms of the indentures. Any subsequent dealing with the land that contradicts the Act would be void to the extent of inconsistency, unless a later Act overrides it.

The source text contains no references to any court cases, either by citation or by discussion. The Act does not name any decided cases. This does not necessarily mean no litigation has occurred. The narrow scope of the Act and its age (over 65 years) make it possible that disputes have arisen but not been recorded in easily accessible reports, or that cases were decided on conveyancing or trust principles without citing the Act.

Given the Act’s provisions, potential litigation could concern:

• Boundary disputes: The metes and bounds descriptions in Schedules One to Five are detailed but use imperial measurements and physical landmarks (e.g., “the north‑western corner of a stone pillar”). Over time, physical features may have been removed, altered, or obscured. Disputes might arise between the colleges, the University, or neighbouring landowners (including the Women’s College) over the precise location of the rights of way or the boundaries of the vested land. A court would need to interpret the schedules and possibly order a survey.

• Trust enforcement: If the trusts for the colleges have been breached (e.g., land used for a purpose outside the indenture), a beneficiary could sue. The Act defines the trusts by reference to the indentures. Litigation might address whether the proviso or condition that voids the trusts has been triggered. The Act itself does not specify those trigger events; they are in the 1924 and 1926 indentures, which are not reproduced. Any case would turn on interpretation of those indentures.

• Obstruction of rights of way: Given the location within the University of Sydney campus, the rights of way may be affected by university construction, road closures, or pedestrianisation. The broad wording (“horses, cattle or other animals, carriages, motor cars or other vehicles of any description”) might be tested in relation to modern uses (e.g., bicycles, e‑scooters, autonomous vehicles). A court might also address whether the right is absolute or subject to reasonable regulation by the landowner, particularly where safety is concerned. The Act says “full right and liberty” and “notwithstanding anything in any instrument contained,” suggesting a very strong right, but no Australian court has yet interpreted this specific provision in a reported judgment.

• Trustee identity: The definition of “trustees for Wesley College” in s.2(4) and “trustees for Saint Paul’s College” in s.3(3) refers to the persons who were trustees immediately before commencement. If the identity of those persons is disputed (e.g., if records are lost), a court might need to determine who they were. The date of commencement affects this, so the proclamation date is critical.

• Interaction with s.7 of the 1924-1937 Act: The saving provision preserves s.7 of that earlier Act but does not set out its content. If a dispute arises where this Act appears to conflict with s.7 of the earlier Act, a court must determine the extent of the saving. Section 3(1) of this Act is allowed to affect s.7. The boundaries of that exception could be litigated.

No reported cases have been identified in the source. Researchers should check the NSW Supreme Court judgments online using the full Act name and key phrases such as “Schedule One” or “subgrant.” The Act’s obscurity may mean it has never been judicially considered. This is a risk factor for anyone relying on the Act: there is no judicial guidance on its interpretation.

The Act contains several traps for the unwary practitioner. These arise from the drafting style, the reliance on external documents, and the passage of time.

1. The trusts are not in the Act. Sections 2(2) and 3(1)(b) declare that the trustees hold the land upon “the same trusts as those for the use and benefit of” the college governing body “in and by such indenture … declared.” The indentures are from 1924 and 1926. They are not attached to the Act. A practitioner cannot ascertain the full scope of the trustees’ duties, the provisos for voiding the trusts, or the powers of the trustees without locating those two indentures. The indentures may be held by the University of Sydney archives, the colleges themselves, or the NSW Land Registry Services (if registered). They may have been lost. The Act does not say where they are deposited.

2. The provisos that void the trusts are unknown. Both subsections refer to “the proviso or condition … declaring the circumstances in which the trusts … become void cease and determine.” These are potentially draconian. If a condition is breached, the land could revert. The Act does not identify the condition. Anyone advising the trustees must locate the indenture and assess compliance. Non‑compliance could destroy the trusts.

3. The rights of way are unlimited in scope. The rights of way in ss.2(3) and 3(2) are expressed in absolute terms: “full right and liberty … at all times by day or night with or without horses, cattle or other animals, carriages, motor cars or other vehicles of any description.” The phrase “other vehicles of any description” is extremely broad. It could cover heavy trucks, construction equipment, or agricultural machinery. The right is not limited to access for the college’s own purposes. The landowner (likely the University) has no ability to restrict the right based on time, noise, or safety, unless a court implies a reasonableness limitation. The Act says “notwithstanding anything in this Act or any other instrument contained,” further limiting the ability of the landowner to impose restrictions.

4. The Schedules use obsolete imperial measurements. The land descriptions in Schedules One to Five use roods, perches, links, and bearings measured in degrees, minutes, and seconds. Many calls are “a little more or less.” Over time, survey monuments may have been lost. Converting to metric and reconciling with modern survey plans is necessary. A boundary discrepancy could lead to a dispute that the Act does not resolve.

5. The Act may not be in force. Section 1(2) says the Act shall commence upon a day appointed by the Governor and notified by proclamation. The source does not include a commencement date. If the Act was never proclaimed, all its provisions are void. The “inforce” label on the website may rely on a Gazette notice not reproduced. Practitioners must check the NSW legislation register or the Gazette for the proclamation. Relying on the Act without confirming commencement is risky.

6. The definition of trustees is static. Section 2(4) defines “trustees for Wesley College” as the persons who were trustees immediately before commencement. This definition appears only in s.2. Section 3(3) similarly defines “trustees for Saint Paul’s College.” Once the Act commences, new trustees may be appointed under the indentures or under the Trustee Act 1925. Are they also “trustees for Wesley College”? The Act does not say. The rights of way in ss.2(3) and 3(2) grant rights to “the trustees for Wesley College” and “the trustees for Saint Paul’s College” as defined, but also to “their successors.” “Successors” would capture later trustees, but the definition of the body is static. A court would likely read the definition as merely identifying the initial grantees, with successors covered under general law. But the ambiguity is a gotcha.

7. The saving provision (s.4) requires cross‑referencing. Section 4 says nothing in the Act affects s.7 of the 1924-1937 Act except as specified in s.3(1). That earlier Act must be consulted. If s.7 contains restrictions incompatible with the rights of way or the trust declarations, the restrictions prevail except for the Saint Paul’s modification. A practitioner who fails to read s.7 might give incorrect advice.

8. No registration mechanism. The Act does not require the statutory vesting or the rights of way to be registered on title. Under the Torrens system, an easement created by statute is an overriding interest if it falls within the exceptions in s.42(1)(a1) of the Real Property Act 1900. However, the NSW Land Registry may require evidence of the statutory creation to note it on the folio. If not noted, a prospective purchaser of the servient land might not be aware of the right of way, but would still be bound. This creates conveyancing risk.

9. The rights of way are over land that may have been redeveloped. Western Avenue and Carillon Avenue are named. Over 65 years, the road layouts may have changed. The descriptions in Schedules Two and Five refer to “Western Avenue” and “Carillon Avenue (formerly known as Saint Paul’s Road).” If those roads have been realigned or closed, the rights of way may be impossible to exercise. The Act does not provide an adaptation mechanism. The courts would have to decide whether the right is extinguished by frustration or whether a substituted route is implied.

10. The identity of the 1924 and 1926 indentures. The Act says “indenture of subgrant dated the twenty‑ninth day of October, one thousand nine hundred and twenty‑four” and “eighth day of December, one thousand nine hundred and twenty‑six.” The parties are named: The University of Sydney, certain trustees, and the college bodies. These indentures are not public acts. They may be registered with NSW Land Registry Services, but may also be held in college archives. If they cannot be located, compliance is impossible.

Compliance with the Act is a matter for the trustees and the college governing bodies. There is no regulator to report to. The following steps are necessary.

Step 1: Verify commencement. Confirm that the Act was proclaimed. Check the NSW legislation website or the 1957 Gazette. If no proclamation is found, the Act may not be in force. Do not rely on an assumption because the website shows an “in force” status; the commencement date should be independently verified.

Step 2: Locate the two indentures of subgrant. The 1924 indenture for Saint Paul’s College and the 1926 indenture for Wesley College must be obtained. They contain the full text of the trusts, the provisos for voiding the trusts, and the original descriptions of land. Without them, the trustees cannot know their duties. The University of Sydney archives, the colleges, or the NSW Land Registry Services (if the indentures were lodged) are the likely sources. If the indentures cannot be found, compliance is impossible and advice should be sought on whether the Act can be given effect, possibly by application to the Supreme Court for directions under the Trustee Act 1925.

Step 3: Identify the current trustees. For Wesley College, the trustees are those persons who immediately before commencement held the land under the 1926 indenture. Their identity may be determined from the indenture or from historical records. The current trustees may be a continuing body with a power of appointment under the indenture. If the trustees have changed, the persons who now hold the legal title need to be identified. The Act’s definition of “trustees for Wesley College” in s.2(4) may be read as only the initial trustees, but the rights of way refer to “successors.” The prudent course is to ensure that the current trustees are properly appointed under the indenture and have assumed the duties imposed by s.2(2). For Saint Paul’s College, a similar process applies under s.3(3).

Step 4: Confirm the land is correctly identified. Engage a registered surveyor to compare the metes and bounds descriptions in Schedules One through Five with the current land titles. The descriptions use imperial units and older reference points. The surveyor should produce a plan reconciling the statutory descriptions with the current Torrens title. This is critical because the rights of way and the trusts attach to specific parcels. If the surveys cannot be reconciled, legal advice on the effect of the “a little more or less” tolerance is needed.

Step 5: Hold the land on the declared trusts. The Wesley trustees must hold the Schedule One land (and the land from the 1926 indenture) on the trusts declared in that indenture. The Saint Paul’s trustees must hold the Schedule Three land on the trusts declared in the 1924 indenture. This means the land must be used only for the use and benefit of the respective colleges. The trustees should document their holding by resolution and ensure that any dealings with the land (leases, licences, construction) are consistent with the trust purposes.

Step 6: Observe the provisos and conditions. The indentures contain provisos that can void the trusts. The trustees must identify each proviso and monitor compliance. For example, if the indenture requires that the land be used only for college purposes and not alienated without consent, the trustees must ensure that no action triggers the voiding condition. The proviso on nomination or election of new trustees must be followed when trustees change.

Step 7: Exercise and respect the rights of way. The Wesley College right of way under s.2(3) is over Schedule Two land. The Saint Paul’s College right of way under s.3(2) is over Schedules Four and Five. The trustees should ensure that the grantee colleges and their authorised users are aware of the existence and scope of the rights. The servient landowner (likely the University) must not obstruct the rights. Correspondence should confirm that the easements are recognised and recorded. If the landowner has changed, the current servient owner must be notified.

Step 8: Record the interests. Although not mandatory, the vesting and the rights of way should be recorded on the relevant certificates of title. An application to NSW Land Registry Services under the Real Property Act 1900 can be made to note the statutory easements and the change of ownership under the vesting. This will reduce conveyancing risk.

Step 9: Cross‑reference the 1924-1937 Act. Section 4 saves s.7 of the earlier Act. The trustees must obtain a copy of that section and ensure that nothing they do violates it, except as permitted by s.3(1) (the modification of the Saint Paul’s subgrant). Compliance with s.7 is mandatory.

Step 10: Keep records. Given the age of the Act and the possibility of disputes, all steps taken to identify the indentures, the trustees, and the land boundaries should be documented. Minutes of trustee meetings, survey reports, and correspondence with the University should be retained. If a dispute arises, this documentation will be essential.

Step 11: Seek legal advice on any doubt. The Act is obscure and the external documents may be ambiguous. Trustees should not act on the Act alone. A solicitor with experience in property and trust law should review the indentures and advise on the specific duties and risks.