“The appointor is dead. Long live the appointor!”

___

G was born in 1923 and died in 2011. Before death G enjoyed business success and made a succession plan: [5]

G had 4 children and a number of grandchildren: [15] – [20]

The trust was settled by deed in 1986 with G appointor and settlor. P was (and remained) the trustee: [44] and [48]

The property of the trust was real property of some value and some publicly traded shares: [76]

G’s plan included a trust with unusual aspects, and without clear reasons: [9]

The structure was odd: (i) the trust’s terms caused the range of benefs to be reduced on G’s death; (ii) G’s role as appointor had no path for a successor on G’s death; and (iii) G failed to let their family and advisers know their reasons for this approach: [7]

P came to Court in 2025 seeking amendments to the trust deed pursuant to s 86A: [10]

P’s proposed amendments included dealing with the appointor issues and the breadth of beneficiaries: [13], [14]

The wording of the trust deed will dictate the nature of each appointor’s role: [26], [33]

The role of appointor is an administrative power dictated by each trust deed: [26] – [36]

No fiduciary duty attaches to the role of appointor. The Court considered contrasting authorities regarding how an appointor’s powers – to be used in good faith and for the benefs as a whole, or for the appointor’s benefit (perhaps in their capacity as benef): [41] – [43]

The trust deed had no provision dealing with the death of the appointor: [51]

G was the named appointor. The deed dictated various tasks the appointor could perform, and various matters referable to the appointor’s life: [60]

E.g. (i) the number of benefs was reduced after G’s death; (ii) the trustee could validly distribute income to Cos whose board included G; and (iii) the trust could only be varied during G’s life: [61]

The provenance of the trust deed was not clear with some suggestion the deed was a “standard precedent”: [71] – [74]

In certain circs the Court can appoint an appointor pursuant to its inherent jurisdiction: [91] – [97]

(Respectfully) Excellent consideration was given to the statutory underpinning of the Sup Ct’s power to amend trusts: [106] – [150]

After reviewing various jurisdictions’ evolving position on the point, the Court found the Sup Ct had that power to insert an appointor: [167]

The Court noted it had the power to widen the pool of benefs and a discretion to approve proposed arrangements or amendments to trusts: [171], [172]

The Court resolved its inherent jurisdiction would be exercised in this case to appoint the appointors contended for by P: [182]

Having heard evidence that restoring the beneficiary class to its “pre-G’s death” position would be beneficial for family harmony, the Court made the amendment to that effect: [188] – [197]

___

Please follow James d'Apice, Gravamen, and Coffee and a Case Note on your favourite platform!

www.gravamen.com.au