NEW SOUTH WALES COURT ISSUES JUDGEMENT FOR VANDA RUSSELL GOULD, ET AL. V/S VRG MANAGEMENT, ET AL. CASE

Australia, Aug. 4 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on July 3:

1. The Gould Family Trust (the Trust) is a discretionary trust established by deed of settlement dated 1 July 1985 that established the Trust (the Deed).

2. Clause 15 of the Deed conferred on "the Parent" a power to remove any trustee or to appoint any new or additional trustee of the Trust.

3. Clause 21 of the Deed conferred on the trustee a power to "by resolution or deed revoke add to or vary all or any of the trusts contained in this Deed".

4. The first plaintiff, Vanda Russell Gould, is "the Parent" named in the Deed.

5. Mr Gould exercised his power under clause 15 to appoint the first defendant, VRG Management Pty Ltd (VRGM) as the trustee of the Trust in April 2023. The second defendant, Mr John Nichols, has been the sole director of VRGM at all times relevant to these proceedings, save for the period from 4 September 2024 until 30 April 2025 when the directors of VRGM were Mr Nichols and the second plaintiff, Mr Shane Styles.

6. These proceedings arise out of a dispute about:

1) the validity of an amendment to clause 15 of the Deed made, or purportedly made, by VRGM on or about 18 April 2024 to remove Mr Gould's right of removal and appointment of trustees, and to provide for that right to be exercisable only after Mr Gould's death by the person or persons nominated in his will and, in the absence of any such nomination, by the executors and trustees of his will (the 2024 Amending Deed); and

2) the effectiveness and validity of a Notice of Removal of Trustee and Appointment of New Trustee of the Gould Family Trust issued, or purportedly issued, by Mr Gould on 16 June 2024 appointing Mr Styles as trustee of the Trust with effect from 10:30am on 17 June 2024 and removing VRGM as trustee with effect from 10:31am on that date (or, alternatively, the effectiveness and validity of a further notice to the same effect issued, or purportedly issued, by Mr Gould on 23 May 2025).

7. The proceedings were commenced on an urgent basis before the Equity Duty Judge on 29 May 2025. Following an ex parte hearing on that day, freezing orders were made against VRGM and the third to ninth defendants.

8. The freezing orders were subsequently extended until further order by the Duty Judge at an inter partes hearing on 3 June 2025, on the understanding that the defendants intended to apply for those orders to be discharged, and that the plaintiffs would bear the onus on that application of demonstrating that the freezing orders should be continued.

9. These reasons concern the defendants' application to discharge the freezing orders, principally on the basis of the plaintiffs' alleged non-disclosure of material matters to the Duty Judge at the ex parte hearing on 29 May 2025, and the plaintiffs' application to continue the freezing orders under r 25.11 or alternatively r 25.3 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). Those applications were heard in the Equity Duty Judge List on 16 and 17 June 2025.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/197c93778aca7c99220cadbb)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.