The Ps said D1 held the funds on trust.

The Ds didn’t go to the hearing but the Court found it was OK to go ahead in their absence: [12]

D1 made representations about an investment being “100% safe and secure”: [24]

The Ps then made a number of investments with D1. As they did, D1 would send a document titled “Declaration of Trust” for the relevant P to sign: [27], [31]

The Ps invested around $2.4m in this way: [35]

In considering whether a trust arose the Court had to consider whether there was certainty of intention, subject matter and object: [40]

The test of certainty of subject matter (the money) and object (investing with the hope of a return) were comfortably met: [41]

But did the parties intend that the money be held on trust?

Yes.

The Court found: (i) the documents referred to the sums being held “in trust”; (ii) the use of the word “trust” was purposeful; (iii) the surrounding circumstances suggest a trust purpose; and (iv) even if the relationship was debtor/creditor, that does not exclude the obligations of a trust arising: [47] - [51]

The Court declared D1 held the sums on trust. Costs followed the event: [59]