Court Rules on Family Trust Dispute
The Supreme Court of New South Wales has delivered judgment in Thynne v Jevny Pty Limited [2025] NSWSC 986, a case involving a family trust, a memorandum of wishes, and long-running disputes between family members over property, income distributions, and trustee obligations.
Background
James Bernard Thynne (“Jim”) established the Thynne Family Trust in 1980. The trust owned the family’s farming property “Elanora” at Valla, NSW, while Jim ran the farming business. Jim’s will left key assets to his wife, Victoria, with the understanding—set out in a memorandum of wishes—that after her death, the Mona Road family home and other assets would pass to his sons, Harry and Patrick.
After Jim’s death in 2011, Victoria controlled the trust and the family farming business. Over time, disputes arose between Harry and Victoria over:
- whether Victoria could mortgage the Mona Road property,
- whether she had improperly received income distributions from the trust, and
- whether she breached any obligations under the memorandum of wishes.
Harry also sought to remove Jevny Pty Ltd (the corporate trustee) and have a receiver appointed to sell trust assets.
Key Issues
The Court had to consider:
- Whether Victoria breached obligations under the memorandum of wishes by mortgaging the Mona Road property.
- Whether trust income distributions to Victoria and her farming company were authorised.
- Whether the trustee, Jevny Pty Ltd, should be removed for conflict of interest or breaches of trust.
Court’s Findings
1. Mortgage over the Mona Road property
The Court found Victoria was entitled to full use and enjoyment of the Mona Road property during her lifetime. The memorandum of wishes only required her to leave the property (or sale proceeds) to Harry and Patrick in her will. Mortgaging the property did not breach this obligation unless it prevented the property passing to the sons on her death—which had not occurred.
2. Trust income distributions
The Court found that distributions made to Victoria and her company before Jim’s death were not authorised because the trust deed was never validly amended to include them as beneficiaries. However, the Court accepted that both Jim (before his death) and Victoria (afterwards) acted honestly and reasonably in believing the distributions were valid. The trustee was excused from liability for distributions made after Jim’s death under section 85 of the Trustee Act 1925 (NSW).
3. Removal of the trustee
The Court refused to remove Jevny Pty Ltd as trustee. There was no evidence of dishonesty, and the trust continued to be administered properly.
Outcome
The Court declared:
- The trust deed terms were as set out in the 1996 statutory declaration.
- Jim was the appointor and a director of Jevny Pty Ltd until his death.
- Victoria and her company were never valid beneficiaries.
- Jevny Pty Ltd was not authorised to distribute income to them but was excused from liability for post-2011 distributions.
Harry’s other claims, including to remove the trustee and appoint a receiver, were dismissed.
Need Advice About Trust Disputes?
Family trust disputes can be complex and emotionally draining. If you are dealing with disagreements about trust administration, beneficiary rights, or property left under a will, our experienced Wills & Estates lawyers can help.
Contact The Law Office of Conrad Curry today to discuss your options and protect your interests.
DISCLAIMER
This article reflects the current law at the time of publication. It is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The actual decisions in each case are summarised for general understanding. For specific legal guidance in relation to your situation, please consult with a qualified legal professional.