NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Knudsen v Kara Kar [2000] NSWSC 715 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 1150/91 HEARING DATE(S) : 10, 11 & 12 August 1999 JUDGMENT DATE : 21 July 2000
Niels Knudsen & Suchindra Knudsen (P) PARTIES : Kara Kar Holdings Pty Ltd (D1) William Yardy (D2) Jennifer Yardy (D3) JUDGMENT OF : Austin J
COUNSEL : P Dodson (P) J De Meyrick (D) Koffels (P) SOLICITORS : Harpers (D1) Lincoln Smith & Company (D2-D3) CATCHWORDS : EQUITY - trusts - resulting trusts - amendments to trust instrument fail to deal completely with beneficial ownership - gap in beneficial ownership filled by resulting trust to beneficiaries of unamended trust SUPERANNUATION - construction of superannuation trust deed by reference to surrounding tax circumstances CORPORATIONS - board of directors - informal decisions Attorney-General of the Commonwealth v Breckler (1999) 197 CLR 83 Cowan v Scargill [1985] 1 Ch 270 Dundee General Hospitals Board of Management v Walker [1952] 1 All ER 896 Gisborne v Gisborne (1877) 2 App Cas 300 Karger v Paul [1984] VR 161 Lock v Westpac Banking Corporation (1991) 25 NSWLR 593 Lutheran Church of Australia v Farmers' Co-operative Executors & Trustees Limited (1970) 121 CLR 628 Maciejewski v Telstra Super Pty Ltd (1998) 44 NSWLR 601 Metropolitan Gas Company v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1932) 47 CLR 621 Parkes Management Ltd v Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd (1977) ACLR 303 CASES CITED : Rapa v Patience (Supreme Court of New South Wales, 4 April 1985, unreported Re Baden's Deed Trusts [1971] AC 424 Re Beloved Wilkes' Charity (1851) 3 Mac & G 440 Re Bond; ex parte Ramsay (1992) 92 ATC 4807 Re Hay's Settlement Trust [1981] 3 All ER 786 Re Leek Dec'd [1968] 1 All ER 793 Re Londonderry's Settlement [1965] Ch 918 Re Manisty's Settlement [1974] Ch 17 Re Pauling's Settlement Trusts [1964] Ch 303 Re Vandervell's Trusts (No 2) [1974] Ch 269 Scott v National Trust [1988] 2 All ER 705 Vidovic v Email Superannuation Pty Ltd (Supreme Court of New South Wales, 3 March 1995, unreported DECISION : Order that separate questions be determined under Part 31 of the Supreme Court Rules; separate questions answered in favour of plaintiffs
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate