NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR NEW SOUTH WALES v FRED FULHAM & ORS [2002] NSWSC 629 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 1710/2002 HEARING DATE(S) : 26-28/06/2002 JUDGMENT DATE : 19 July 2002
Attorney General for New South Wales - Plaintiff Fred Fulham - First Defendant Charles Kelly - Second Defendant Evan Lyall Jones - Third Defendant Peter Flaherty - Fourth Defendant Godfrey Eugene Priest, Bruce Vanzela and John Thomas Walter Sheehan (As Trustees of the RSL Welfare and Benevolent Institution) - Fifth Defendant PARTIES : Leukaemia Foundation of New South Wales Incorporated - Sixth Defendant Sidney Philip Lindeman - Seventh Defendant Richard James Maher - Eighth Defedant Kevin Bryan Vance - Ninth Defendant The Trustees of the Society of St Vincent De Paul (NSW) Incorporated - Tenth Defendant The Australian Cancer Research Foundation - Eleventh Defendant Remy Lam Son Bui - Twelfth Defendant JUDGMENT OF : Bryson J at 1
Ms K.L. Eastman - Pltf Mr Tudehope (s) - 1D; submitting Ms A. Williams (s) - 2D - submitting Mr J.C. Thompson - 3D, 7D, 8D and 9D Peter Flaherty in Person - 4D COUNSEL : Mr B. Ellicott QC & Mr N. Gye - 5D Mr R.D. Wilson - 6D Mr G.M. McGrath - 10D Mr R. Darke SC - 11D Mr R.J. d'Apice (s) - 12D Mr J. Basten QC - Centenary Institute Ms L. Doust (s) - Vietnam Veterans Association I V Knight Crown Solicitor - Pltf O'Hara & Company - 1D Leslie Caplan & Grunstein - 2D Connah, Steed & Co - 3, 7, 8 & 9Ds Peter Flaherty in Person - 4D SOLICITORS : Pricewaterhouse Coopers Legal - 5D Tress Cocks & Maddox - 6D Murphy & Moloney - 10D Allens Arthur Robinson - 11D Makinson & d'Apice - 12D R.L. Whyburn & Associates - Vietnam Veterans Association. CATCHWORDS : CHARITIES - cy pres scheme - supervening impossibility - power under Charitable Trusts Act 1993 s.10 - Leichhardt - Lilyfield Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen's Memorial Hall Building Trust - AGNSW applied for cy pres scheme where charity owned site of Leichhardt RSL Club - after litigation Club in liquidation and some of Hall Trust Trustees sold land and distributed most of funds to other charities without authority of members and without proceeding to Dissolution in accordance with Constitution - on the facts, cy pres scheme was appropriate because of supervening impossibility and also under s.10 - consideration of practicalities affecting pursuing Recipients for repayment and then distributing according to a scheme devised by the Court - consideration of positions of trustees and other persons related to the Hall Trust - consideration of merits and claims of Recipients and of other charities which intervened - notwithstanding many considerations against doing so, the practicalities favoured adopting a cy pres scheme which in effect ratified the unauthorised distributions which had been made. Charitable Trusts Act 1993 LEGISLATION CITED : Charitable Collections Act 1934 Charitable Fundraising Act 1991 Trustee Act 1925 Attorney-General v Sherborne Grammar School (1854) 18 Beavan 256 Attorney-General for New South Wales v Adams (1908) 7 CLR 100 Re Taylor; Martin v Freeman 58 LT 538 Attorney-General (NSW) v Perpetual Trustee Co (Ltd) (1940) 63 CLR 209 Phillips v Roberts [1975] 2 NSWLR 207 Hixon v Campbell (1924) 24 SR (NSW) 436 Williams v Attorney-General (1948) 48 SR (NSW) 505 Beggs v Kirkpatrick [1961] VR 764 at 767 Attorney-General (SA) v Bray (1964) 111 CLR 402 Harris v Skevington [1978] 1 NSWLR 176 Gertsch v Atsas [1999] NSWSC 898 Income Tax Special Purposes Commissioners v Pemsel [1891] AC 531 CASES CITED : Murray v Thomas [1937] 4 All ER 545 In Re Spence; Barclays Bank Ltd v Stockton-on-Tees Corporation [1938] Ch 96 Monds v Stackhouse (1948) 77 CLR 232. Verge v Somerville [1924] AC 496 Barby v Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd (1937) 58 CLR 316 Somerville v Attorney-General for the Commonwealth of Australia (1921) 21 SR (NSW) 450 Williams v Attorney-General (1948) 48 SR (NSW) 505 Free Church of Scotland v Overtoun; Macalister v Young [1904] AC 515 Attorney General (NSW); Ex rel MacLeod v Grant (1976) 135 CLR 587 Murray v Thomas [1937] 4 All ER 545 In Re Slevin; Slevin v Hepburn [1891] 2 Ch 236 In Re Diplock; Diplock v Wintle [1948] 1 Ch 465 Retravision (NSW) Ltd v Copeland (Young J 8 October 1997 Unreported) DECISION : Cy pres scheme proposed by AG was adopted - see [90]
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