Where a corporate trustee is removed upon an insolvency event, the outgoing trustee retains a right of indemnity from the trust assets which is secured by an equitable charge.

Prior to the decision of Brereton J in Stansfield DIY Wealth Pty Ltd (in liquidation)[1] ("Stansfield"), a liquidator of an insolvent corporate trustee (which was removed as trustee upon liquidation), which had a beneficial interest over trust assets by virtue of an equitable charge, could sell trust assets pursuant to section 477(2)(c) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ("the Act") without having to seek approval from the Court.[2] However, Brereton J in Stansfield disagreed with this approach noting that the power of sale under section 477(2)(c) of the Act is limited to where the company has both legal and beneficial interest in the property (which interest is lost upon removal as trustee) as a liquidator cannot sell interests in property that the company does not have.  In this regard, Brereton J stated:

“The equitable interest of a trustee that has a charge to secure its right of indemnity extends to all the assets of the trust, but is not co-extensive with them: it is constrained to the limit of the liabilities that it secures. Moreover, it is in the nature of a hypothecation, and does not equate to beneficial ownership. The relevant "property of the company" is the charge, not the assets charged. Accordingly, the liquidator would be authorised by s 477 to sell the company's interest as equitable chargee, but not the underlying assets to which the charge attached”.

Accordingly, Brereton J found that:

"section 477(2)(c) does not empower a liquidator to sell the beneficial interest in property that the company holds on trust, even if the company has an equitable charge over it, because the property is not itself "property of the company”".

Whilst Brereton J accepted that an insolvent corporate trustee can sell its equitable interest in trust assets, it is only that interest and not the whole asset that a liquidator is entitled to sell. Brereton J gave the example that, if the insolvent corporate trustee holds land upon trust for itself and three others, the liquidator can sell the legal interest of the insolvent corporate trustee and its 25 per cent beneficial interest, but not the other 75 per cent.

Therefore:

  1. an insolvent corporate trustee cannot sell trust assets to satisfy liabilities of the company where it holds only legal title to those assets;
  2. where an insolvent corporate trustee has a beneficial interest in trust assets, it can sell only this beneficial interest; and
  3. an insolvent corporate trustee is not empowered under section 477(2)(c) to sell trust assets where the insolvent corporate trustee has an equitable interest over those assets by virtue of an equitable charge.

However, as identified by Brereton J, this does not leave a liquidator of an insolvent corporate trustee without remedy. In circumstances where an insolvent corporate trustee has been removed from the position of trustee and has an equitable charge over the trust assets for liabilities incurred while acting as trustee, a liquidator can seek appointment as a receiver of the trust assets, by way of enforcement of the indemnity.

It appears that Stansfield has set a new precedent in this area of law. Accordingly, at least until this issue is decided by an appellate court, a liquidator of an outgoing corporate trustee looking to sell trust assets should apply to the Court to be appointed as receiver of the trust assets.

If you are a liquidator of an outgoing corporate trustee, contact our Dispute Resolution & Insolvency team for further information and advice.

  1. [2014] NSWSC 1484.

  2. See Apostolou v VA Corporation of Australia Pty Ltd (2010) 77 ACSR 84, Re Bacchus Distillery Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (2014) 98 ACSR 539 and Kitay, in the matter of South West Kitchens [2014] FCA 670.

This communication provides general information which is current as at the time of production. The information contained in this communication does not constitute advice and should not be relied upon as such. Professional advice should be sought prior to any action being taken in reliance on any of the information. Should you wish to discuss any matter raised in this article, or what it means for you, your business or your clients' businesses, please feel free to contact us.

For more information, please contact...

Joe De Ruvo

View Profile →

Related Articles

View All News
October 29, 2024 Harvey Norman and Latitude Finance Facing Penalties and Punitive Orders over “60-Month Interest-Free” Advertising Campaign
Dispute Resolution & Insolvency
October 29, 2024 Disqualifications and Jail Time: ASIC Increasing Pressure on Directors for Mismanagement
Corporate & Commercial Dispute Resolution & Insolvency
September 20, 2024 Greenwashing Leads to $11.3 Million Penalty for Superannuation Giant Mercer
Dispute Resolution & Insolvency
June 27, 2024 Massive Fines Loom for Supermarkets as Food and Grocery Code of Conduct Set to Become Mandatory
Dispute Resolution & Insolvency
June 19, 2024 When Reputation Assists in Protecting Your Brand
Intellectual Property (IP) Dispute Resolution & Insolvency
June 19, 2024 The Implications of Bankruptcy: Barry Decision Provides Insights into Corporate and SMSF Affairs
Dispute Resolution & Insolvency
June 19, 2024 Revisiting Legal and Ethical Standards: Lessons From Henderson for Financial Advisers
Dispute Resolution & Insolvency
June 18, 2024 Federal Court of Australia Provides Guidance on the Requirements for Licensees to Take Reasonable Steps
Dispute Resolution & Insolvency
June 04, 2024 The Importance of an Appropriate AFSL
Dispute Resolution & Insolvency
April 18, 2024 2025 Edition of Best Lawyers: Celebrating Our Leaders and a Rising Star
Firm News Corporate & Commercial Employment, Workplace Relations & Safety + 6
March 08, 2024 In Pursuit of Justice: The Women’s Rights Journey
Dispute Resolution & Insolvency
October 30, 2023 DW Fox Tucker Lawyers Gains an Engineering Edge with the Arrival of Rising Star
Firm News Dispute Resolution & Insolvency
September 26, 2023 DW Fox Tucker Lawyers Welcomes Helene Chryssidis as Director
Firm News Dispute Resolution & Insolvency
September 22, 2023 Navigating the Building & Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2009 (SA)
Dispute Resolution & Insolvency
July 12, 2023 How to Freeze Crypto Assets in South Australia
Dispute Resolution & Insolvency
June 30, 2021 Two of a Kind: Federal Court Refuses to See Double in Case of Identical Pharmaceutical Products
Dispute Resolution & Insolvency
June 30, 2021 When are Directors Liable for Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Passing off, Trade Mark Infringement or Unconscionable Conduct?
Corporate & Commercial Dispute Resolution & Insolvency Intellectual Property (IP)
June 30, 2021 Jurisdiction Clauses: A Primer
Dispute Resolution & Insolvency
June 30, 2021 An Insurer’s Duty of Utmost Good Faith
Dispute Resolution & Insolvency Insurance & Risk Management
December 16, 2020 King Reigns All: High Court Decides Holding Companies May Be Held Accountable for Subsidiary Company Actions
Corporate & Commercial Dispute Resolution & Insolvency