Allowed
Trustee Ordered to Pay Beneficiaries Sums Owing Plus Interest
Case No.
📚 Full judgment
The summary, holding and questions above are VadeLab’s own material. The official decision itself is published by the court, and we do not reproduce it on this page.
📄 Read the full judgment⚖️ View on the official court website ↗
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The trustee must pay beneficiaries the sums owing, plus interest at the Schedule J rate.
- Interest should be calculated from the time the trustee exercised its discretion to make a distribution.
- The costs of the re-hearing should be paid by the trustee.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The costs order at the first hearing should not be extinguished when the Court of Appeal ordered a re-hearing.
- The interest should not be adjusted to reflect the delay from 14 December 1997 to 22 May 1998 without evidence of prejudice.
- The costs of the mentions during the period of delay should not be excluded from the costs order in favor of the beneficiaries.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about the trustee paying the beneficiaries the sums owing, plus interest at the correct rate.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify the evidence or documents that mattered.
Official source: Supreme Court of New South Wales — this page does not reproduce the decision; it links to the court's own publication. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the Supreme Court of New South Wales and is reproduced from NSW Caselaw (© State of New South Wales) under its published republication policy. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.