PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Application to vary orders to permit sale of property to fund legal representation in proceedings - whether party may be heard on application where prima facie in contempt - whether “rule” discretionary - principles of Young V Jackman; Hadkinson v Hadkinson - Civil Procedure act 2005 (NSW), ss 55-64.
Kirralee Young represented the Plaintiff.
Reasons for the decision can be found here.
EQUITY — Trusts and trustees — Resulting trusts — Purchase money trusts — Family and domestic relationships
FAMILY LAW — Property — De facto relationship — Adjustment of property interests — Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW)
K J Young represented the Plaintiff.
Reasons for the decision can be found here.
EQUITY — charitable trusts — Validity and practicability — Administrative scheme ordered for a scholarship bequest for the purposes of the Mt Tomah Garden administered by the Royal Botanic Garden and Domain Trust.
Dr Christos Mantziaris represented the Attorney General (NSW).
Reasons for the decision can be found here.
EQUITY — charitable trusts – application for approval of the settlement of charitable trust proceedings – Separation of assets of the St George Serbian Orthodox Church and School Cabramatta (SGSOCC) under two cy–près schemes effecting a division of assets between two different church organisations.
Dr Christos Mantziaris represented the representatives of the SGSOCC (Plaintiffs).
Reasons for the decision can be found here.
EQUITY – Charitable trusts — private international law — validity of testamentary gift to a foreign executor applying the gift to a charitable purpose in a foreign jurisdiction — how the foreign charitable purpose is to be assessed — Hague Convention — evidence of foreign law.
Dr Christos Mantziaris represented the Attorney General (NSW).
Reasons for the decision can be found here.
EQUITY – TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES – IMPLIED TRUSTS – CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTS – KNOWING RECEIPT – where an employee of the applicant induced the first respondent, through its managing director, the second respondent, to invoice the applicant for work done by a company owned and controlled by the employee – where in fact no such work had been performed by the employee’s company and the invoices were a fabrication – where the applicant submitted that the issue of the fictitious invoices by the respondents constituted knowing assistance of the employee – where the applicant submitted that the respondents knowingly received the proceeds of payment of the invoices – whether the respondents’ held the kind of knowledge necessary to be found accessorily liable for the employee’s breach of fiduciary duty.
EQUITY – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – MISTAKE RECOVERY OF MONEY PAID OR EXPENDED – MONEY PAID BY MISTAKE – MISTAKE OF FACT – where the applicant paid money to the first respondent under an operative mistake of fact – where the respondents entered into the arrangement with the applicant’s employee in good faith – where the respondents would be placed in a worse position if ordered to make restitution of payments that it had passed on to the employee’s company than if it had not received payments from the applicant at all – whether the respondents could rely on a change of position defence to a claim by the applicant for restitution.
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – WHEN APPEAL LIES – FROM DISTRICT COURT – BY LEAVE OF COURT – where the proposed appeal does not raise any significant questions of law but rather the application of well-established principles of law to the facts – whether, in the circumstances, leave to appeal should be granted.
Tim Castle and James Green represented the Applicant.
Reasons for the judgement can be found here.
Liability limited pursuant to a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.