New BTHC column in Sydney Law Review

Aryan Mohseni writes in Trustees’ Indemnities and Fiduciary Duties: The High Court Appeal in Naaman v Jaken Properties Australia Pty Ltd:

The High Court of Australia appeal in Naaman v Jaken Properties raises the question whether a successor trustee owes a ‘fiduciary duty’ to the former trustee to not destroy, jeopardise or diminish the former trustee’s right of indemnity over trust assets. That question arises to determine whether third parties are liable to account in equity as knowing recipients of property dissipated to frustrate the former trustee’s indemnity. It is argued in the appeal that the successor trustee holds the trust assets on express trust for the former trustee to the extent of the former trustee’s indemnity. That conclusion does not account for the variety of equitable interests. Three main points emerge. First, a current trustee has a ‘beneficial interest’ in trust assets only in a superficial sense. Second, upon transfer, that ‘beneficial interest’ is not ‘retained’ by the former trustee; the entitlement of a former trustee over the trust fund changes, and becomes analogous to a charge over a fund. The language of ‘beneficial interest’ in each case is misleading and should be eschewed. Third, it is unnecessary to ask, for the purposes of Barnes v Addy liability, whether any ‘duty’ owed by a successor to a former trustee is a ‘fiduciary duty’.

Read the column