Legal news
Discretionary trusts are commonly understood to be efficient structures for asset protection and tax minimisation, and are widely used in modern-day business. What isn’t so well understood are the obligations of trustees in administering trusts, particularly with regard to providing reasons for their decisions to beneficiaries.
On 27 October 2014 the Coroner’s Court of Victoria delivered its finding into the inquest on the death of Kyle Vassil. The deceased was a 12 year old student who, on day one of a school camp, drowned in a dam a few meters from shore. Kyle was a competent swimmer who was swimming with other class members in the presence of supervising teachers and young camp leaders when he drowned. The circumstances surrounding the death were tragic and no doubt traumatic for all persons involved. The purpose of the Coronial investigation was to ascertain, if possible, the cause of death and the circumstances in which the death occurred.
Many small to medium sized businesses face disputes between shareholders, who can often be family members. These shareholder disputes can be very expensive to resolve and typically take the form of “oppression” claims commenced in the Supreme Court of Victoria, under the provisions of s 233 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Although individual disputes differ, they all have in common allegations that the affairs of a company have been conducted in an oppressive manner.
The Supreme Court of Western Australia recently found a director personally liable for misleading and deceptive conduct by reason of the director signing a Letter of Offer on behalf of the company, which contained certain representations. While the case dealt with provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1987 (WA), both the Fair Trading Act 1999 (Vic) and the Australian Consumer Law have equivalent provisions.
