# RESEARCH MEMORANDUM — FRAUD/LIMITATION INTERACTION

**Matter:** Quilter & Richards v Gandfors Pty Ltd & Anor
**Court / Number:** Supreme Court of Queensland — BS 1849/26
**Acting for:** Defendants (Gandfors Pty Ltd as trustee of the G & G Trust; Alf Gandfors)
**Prepared by:** BossLawyerAI for Mark Harley, Principal
**Date:** 1 May 2026
**Topic:** Whether a limitation defence under s 27(2) *Limitation of Actions Act 1974* (Qld) is realistically available, having regard to the s 27(1)(a) "fraud or fraudulent breach of trust" exception
**Status:** Privileged — work product for the defence team and counsel

---

## EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. The plaintiffs' claim is for breach of trust spanning FY2004–FY2013. Proceedings were filed on 30 April 2026 — between 13 and 22 years after the alleged breaches. On its face, every cause of action is statute-barred under s 27(2) LAA.

2. The only realistic plaintiff route around s 27(2) is **s 27(1)(a)** ("any fraud or fraudulent breach of trust to which the trustee was a party or privy") and, secondarily, **s 38** (postponement for fraud or concealment). The plaintiffs bear the onus of pleading and proving each element.

3. The leading authority — *Armitage v Nurse* [1998] Ch 241 — sets a **deliberately high threshold**: actual dishonesty in the *Royal Brunei v Tan* sense, or reckless indifference to the beneficiaries' interests. Mere negligence, carelessness, honest mistake, or reliance on professional advice does **not** engage the section. That is our doctrinal home.

4. The danger cases — *Gwembe Valley v Koshy* and *Cattley v Pollard* — show that where a fiduciary takes property for himself in circumstances he must have known were contrary to the beneficiaries' interests, the courts have little difficulty finding fraud. **Our facts are uncomfortably close to that pattern.**

5. **Realistic assessment:** Without a credible, evidence-supported account from Alf explaining the $1,026,952.80 gap (allocated $838K to plaintiffs vs paid them $26K, with $1.05M paid to Alf and Megan instead), our prospects of running pure limitation are **poor — in the range of 20–35%**. The quantum is the single biggest problem. With a strong "I trusted Coomber, I didn't understand" narrative *that survives cross-examination*, prospects rise to perhaps **40–50%**.

6. **Recommendation:** Plead limitation, but **not as the only defence**. Plead in the alternative: (i) no valid determination of present entitlement (no resolutions); (ii) accord and satisfaction / Coomber arrangement; (iii) limitation under s 27(2); (iv) laches and acquiescence. Settlement should be actively explored. The fraud risk to Alf personally — including reputational and accessorial liability under s 27(1)(b) constructive trust principles — is real.

---

## PART 1 — THE STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

### 1.1 Section 27 LAA in full

> **27 Limitation of actions in respect of trust property**
>
> **(1)** No period of limitation prescribed by this Act shall apply to an action by a beneficiary under a trust, being an action—
>
>   **(a)** in respect of any fraud or fraudulent breach of trust to which the trustee was a party or privy; or
>
>   **(b)** to recover from the trustee trust property or the proceeds thereof in the possession of the trustee, or previously received by the trustee and converted to the trustee's use.
>
> **(2)** Subject as aforesaid, an action by a beneficiary to recover trust property or in respect of any breach of trust, not being an action for which a period of limitation is prescribed by any other provision of this Act, shall not be brought after the expiration of 6 years from the date on which the right of action accrued.
>
> Provided that the right of action shall not be deemed to have accrued to any beneficiary entitled to a future interest in the trust property until the interest fell into possession.
>
> **(3)** No beneficiary as against whom there would be a good defence by virtue of this section shall derive any greater or other benefit from a judgment or order obtained by another beneficiary than the beneficiary could have obtained if the beneficiary had brought the action and this section had been pleaded in defence.

### 1.2 Section 38 LAA — postponement for fraud and concealment

> **38 Postponement of limitation period in case of fraud or mistake**
>
> **(1)** Where, in the case of an action for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act—
>
>   **(a)** the action is based upon the fraud of the defendant or the defendant's agent or of any person through whom the defendant or the defendant's agent claims, or the defendant's or the agent's servant; or
>
>   **(b)** the right of action is concealed by the fraud of any such person as aforesaid; or
>
>   **(c)** the action is for relief from the consequences of mistake;
>
> the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud or the mistake, as the case may be, or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.
>
> **(2)** Subsection (1) shall not enable any action to be brought to recover, or enforce any charge against, or set aside any transaction affecting, any property which—
>
>   **(a)** in the case of fraud, has been purchased for valuable consideration by a person who was not a party to the fraud and did not at the time of the purchase know or have reason to believe that any fraud had been committed; or
>
>   **(b)** in the case of mistake, has been purchased for valuable consideration, subsequent to the transaction in which the mistake was made, by a person who did not know, or have reason to believe, that the mistake had been made.

### 1.3 The interaction

- **s 27(2)** is the default: 6 years from accrual, subject to the future-interest proviso.
- **s 27(1)(a)** is a complete *carve-out*: if engaged, **no** limitation period applies. There is no "extended" period — the action becomes timeless (subject to laches).
- **s 27(1)(b)** is a separate (and equally complete) carve-out: trust property *still in the trustee's hands* or *previously received and converted to the trustee's own use*. **This sub-section is independently dangerous to us** and is discussed at §1.5 below.
- **s 38** is a *postponement* mechanism (start date moves), not a carve-out. It applies where the claim is "based on" fraud, where the cause of action has been "concealed by fraud", or where the action is for relief from mistake.

The plaintiffs do not need to win on all three — engagement of *either* s 27(1)(a) *or* s 27(1)(b) *or* s 38 defeats limitation. We have to defeat all three.

### 1.4 Burden of proof

The leading position in Australia is that:

- The **defendant** bears the onus of pleading and proving the facts engaging the limitation defence (i.e., that more than 6 years has elapsed since accrual): *Pullen v Gutteridge Haskins & Davey Pty Ltd* [1993] 1 VR 27.
- Once that is shown, the **plaintiff** bears the onus of pleading and proving any matter that takes the case outside the bar — including fraud under s 27(1)(a) and concealment/postponement under s 38: *Seymour v Seymour* (1996) 40 NSWLR 358; *Hamilton v Kaljo* (1989) 17 NSWLR 381.
- Fraud must be **specifically pleaded** with full particulars (UCPR r 150(1)(b)). A general pleading of "fraudulent breach of trust" without particulars will be struck out: *Banque Commerciale SA v Akhil Holdings* (1990) 169 CLR 279 at 286–287.

Practical consequence: in our defence, we plead the limitation period and put the plaintiffs to proof. **It is not for us to prove Alf's innocence** — it is for them to prove his fraud or party/privy status to the requisite standard. Given the seriousness of the allegation, the *Briginshaw v Briginshaw* (1938) 60 CLR 336 standard applies (clear and cogent evidence proportionate to the gravity of the allegation).

### 1.5 The s 27(1)(b) problem (flagged but not the focus)

This memo is asked to focus on s 27(1)(a). However, it is impossible to give a realistic limitation assessment without flagging the **s 27(1)(b)** risk:

- s 27(1)(b) abolishes the limitation period for actions "to recover from the trustee trust property or the proceeds thereof in the possession of the trustee, or previously received by the trustee and converted to the trustee's use".
- **No mental element is required** under s 27(1)(b) — there is no "fraud" requirement. It is enough that the trustee received trust property and converted it to their own use.
- The High Court in *Williams v Central Bank of Nigeria* [2014] AC 1189 (UK Supreme Court, applying the equivalent UK provision) confirmed that this limb is concerned only with **true (Class 1) trustees**.
- Gandfors Pty Ltd is a **true express trustee**. If the plaintiffs plead that the $1.05M was trust property "received" by the trustee and "converted" to Alf's/Megan's use (whether characterised as personal benefit or as breach), s 27(1)(b) may engage even without proof of dishonesty.

We must not let the plaintiffs win the s 27(1)(b) argument by default while we focus on s 27(1)(a). However, the conventional reading of s 27(1)(b) is that it captures property the trustee *still has* or which the trustee took *for the trustee's own benefit qua trustee* (i.e., not bona fide payments to other beneficiaries). The arguments distinguishing s 27(1)(b) here are a separate research piece. Counsel should be briefed.

---

## PART 2 — WHAT IS "FRAUD" FOR S 27(1)(A)?

### 2.1 The threshold: actual dishonesty

The starting point — and end point — for the meaning of "fraud" in s 27(1)(a) is **Millett LJ's formulation in *Armitage v Nurse* [1998] Ch 241 (CA) at 251**:

> "It is the duty of a trustee to manage the trust property and deal with it in the interests of the beneficiaries. If he acts in a way which he does not honestly believe is in their interests then he is acting dishonestly. It does not matter whether he stands or thinks he stands to gain personally from his actions. A trustee who acts with the best intentions and genuinely believes that his actions are for the benefit of the beneficiaries is not acting dishonestly even if he is mistaken. By contrast, a trustee who acts in the way I have described is acting dishonestly even if he believes he is acting honestly."
>
> ... "an intention on the part of the trustee to pursue a particular course of action, either knowing that it is contrary to the interests of the beneficiaries or being recklessly indifferent whether it is contrary to their interests or not."

This is the formulation routinely adopted in Queensland and across Australia. It has two limbs:

1. **Subjective dishonesty** — knowing the conduct is contrary to the beneficiaries' interests; OR
2. **Reckless indifference** — not caring whether the conduct is contrary to their interests.

**Below the threshold (does NOT engage s 27(1)(a)):**

- Mere negligence, however gross: *Armitage v Nurse* itself at 251.
- Carelessness, oversight, administrative failure.
- Honest mistake about the legal effect of conduct (e.g., misunderstanding the difference between trust allocation and physical payment).
- Reliance on competent professional advice (accountant, solicitor) without reason to doubt it: *Daniels v Anderson* (1995) 37 NSWLR 438; *AWA v Daniels* (1992) 7 ACSR 759.
- Honestly held but mistaken belief in entitlement to property: *Re Diplock* [1948] Ch 465.

**Above the threshold (DOES engage s 27(1)(a)):**

- Deliberate self-dealing in known breach of duty: *Gwembe Valley*; *Cattley v Pollard*.
- Knowing misappropriation of trust funds.
- Deliberate concealment of conduct from beneficiaries: *Gwembe Valley*; *Paragon Finance*.
- Reckless indifference — not caring whether one's conduct harms the beneficiaries.
- Knowing the conduct is a breach of trust and proceeding anyway, even if not for personal benefit.

### 2.2 The English authorities — extended analysis

#### 2.2.1 *Armitage v Nurse* [1998] Ch 241 (CA)

**Facts.** A settlement was created on the resettlement of a family marriage breakdown. Paula Armitage was the principal beneficiary. The trustees included Mr Nurse, a solicitor. The trust deed contained a wide exemption clause (clause 15) excluding liability for breach of trust except in the case of "actual fraud". The trustees lost substantial value through bad investment decisions and (it was alleged) negligence. Paula sued for breach of trust.

**Issue.** Did clause 15 protect the trustees against ordinary negligence? Could "actual fraud" be defined by reference to the *Limitation Act 1980* (UK) provisions on fraudulent breach of trust?

**Held.** Yes, clause 15 was effective to exclude liability for negligence (even gross negligence). "Actual fraud" required dishonesty in the *Royal Brunei v Tan* [1995] 2 AC 378 sense. Millett LJ undertook a detailed analysis of the meaning of "fraud" for the purposes of trust law and the limitation regime and articulated the test now universally adopted.

**Pinpoint citations.**
- 250E–251A: the "irreducible core" of trust obligations — duty to act honestly and in good faith.
- 251B–E: the formulation set out in §2.1 above.
- 251F–252B: distinction between dishonesty and gross negligence — gross negligence is *not* fraud.

**Application to our case.** This is our **primary authority**. We must root the defence narrative in *Armitage v Nurse*: Alf's conduct, even if grossly negligent, even if a serious breach of trust, was not dishonest. He relied on Coomber. He did not understand the legal effect of the allocations. He was not recklessly indifferent — he believed (mistakenly) that the arrangement was acceptable because his accountant said so. This is the plot we must sell. Whether Alf can support it on instructions is the central evidentiary question.

#### 2.2.2 *Thorne v Heard* [1895] AC 495 (HL)

**Facts.** Mortgagees employed a solicitor (Searle) to handle mortgage transactions. Searle, without authority, retained mortgage moneys after redemption, paying off the mortgagee in instalments while pocketing the surplus. Twenty-plus years later, the mortgagors sued the mortgagees on the footing that they had been overpaid. The mortgagees pleaded limitation. The mortgagors alleged the limitation period was extended by reason of Searle's fraud (concealment).

**Issue.** Was the *mortgagees'* honest conduct disturbed by their *agent's* fraud, for limitation purposes?

**Held.** Limitation ran. The mortgagees were innocent. Although Searle had been fraudulent, the mortgagees were not "party or privy" to that fraud. The fraud of an agent does not infect a principal who acts honestly and without knowledge.

**Pinpoint.** Lord Herschell at 502: "concealed fraud" requires that the party setting up the limitation defence be themselves implicated in or aware of the fraud.

**Application to our case.** *Thorne v Heard* is **helpful for us in one specific way**: even if Coomber was the architect of the scheme (allocate to stepchildren, divert payments to Alf and Megan), if Alf was honestly mistaken and reliant on him, Alf is not "party or privy" to any fraud Coomber may have committed. **But** this works only if Alf is genuinely innocent — if Alf was the principal and Coomber was implementing his instructions, *Thorne v Heard* helps us not at all.

#### 2.2.3 *Gwembe Valley Development Co Ltd v Koshy (No 3)* [2003] EWCA Civ 1048; [2004] 1 BCLC 131

**Facts.** Koshy was a director of Gwembe Valley Development Company. He arranged for the company to enter a transaction with another entity (also controlled by him), at a substantial profit to himself (over US$3m). He failed to disclose his interest. The company sued years later for account of the secret profit. Koshy pleaded limitation.

**Issue.** Was the action "in respect of any fraud or fraudulent breach of trust" so as to disapply the limitation period under s 21(1)(a) Limitation Act 1980 (UK) (the equivalent of our s 27(1)(a))?

**Held.** Yes. The Court of Appeal (Mummery LJ giving the principal judgment) held that a director who deliberately conceals his personal interest and takes a secret profit commits a "fraudulent breach of trust" for limitation purposes. The deliberate concealment was the touchstone of fraud.

**Pinpoint.**
- [110]–[111]: deliberate concealment of personal benefit by a fiduciary engages the fraud exception.
- [119]: the action against Koshy was not subject to the 6-year limitation period.

**Application to our case — DANGEROUS.** This is the case the plaintiffs will lead with. The factual pattern is uncomfortably close:

- Director (Alf) of trustee company.
- Diverted trust property to himself (and Megan).
- Failed to make distributions to other beneficiaries (the plaintiffs).
- Did not tell the plaintiffs.

**Distinguishing factors we must press:**
- *Gwembe* involved active concealment (Koshy hid his interest in the counterparty). Here, the allocations to the plaintiffs were *disclosed* in lodged tax returns signed by them.
- Koshy benefited from a corporate transaction; Alf received money from a discretionary family trust where he was an eligible beneficiary too.
- Koshy *knew* he was breaching duty; the question for Alf is what he knew.

#### 2.2.4 *Cattley v Pollard* [2006] EWHC 3130 (Ch); [2007] Ch 353

**Facts.** A solicitor (Pollard) misappropriated client funds held on trust. He took the money for personal use over a number of years. The trustees in bankruptcy of the client sued his accomplice (his wife's firm) as a constructive trustee. The defendant pleaded limitation.

**Issue.** Whether the limitation period was disapplied under s 21(1)(a) of the UK Act for fraudulent breach of trust.

**Held.** Where a true trustee deliberately takes trust property for his own use, that is a fraudulent breach of trust regardless of any further concealment. As against the principal wrongdoer (Pollard), no limitation period applied. (The case is also important on the position of accessories — see *Williams v Central Bank of Nigeria* below.)

**Pinpoint.** Richard Sheldon QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) at [76]–[78]: "Where a trustee actually takes trust property for his own use and benefit, that is itself a fraudulent breach of trust within the meaning of s 21(1)(a)."

**Application to our case — DANGEROUS.** *Cattley v Pollard* is the second great danger case. If the plaintiffs can characterise the $1.05M to Alf as Alf "taking trust property for his own use", we are in trouble — even without proving subjective dishonesty in the *Royal Brunei* sense.

**Critical distinguishing factor:** Alf is *himself* a discretionary beneficiary of the G & G Trust. Payments to him are not necessarily "taking" — they may be lawful exercises of the trustee's discretion to distribute to him. **This is crucial.** If we can establish that the payments to Alf and Megan were referable to discretionary distributions in their favour (whether properly determined or not), this is *not* a *Cattley* case. It is a misallocation case at worst. That distinction needs to be entrenched in the defence and in Alf's evidence.

#### 2.2.5 *Paragon Finance v DB Thakerar & Co* [1999] 1 All ER 400 (CA)

**Facts.** Mortgage fraud — solicitors (Thakerar) acted for both lender and borrower in a series of transactions and were alleged to have participated in fraudulent mortgage applications. The lender sued years later. The defendants pleaded limitation.

**Issue.** Whether constructive trustees who never held trust property as such ("Class 2" constructive trustees, e.g., dishonest assistants and knowing recipients) were "trustees" within s 21 of the UK Act.

**Held.** Millett LJ drew the now-canonical distinction between two types of constructive trustee:

- **Class 1:** True trustees — those who, before the events giving rise to the claim, were in a fiduciary relationship with the claimant and held property on trust. Examples: express trustees, executors, directors holding company property, partners.
- **Class 2:** Constructive trustees by reason of wrongful conduct — dishonest assistants, knowing recipients of trust property, persons who fraudulently induce a transfer. They are called "trustees" only as a remedial label, not because they held trust property.

**Held**: s 21(1) applies to Class 1, not to Class 2. A Class 2 "constructive trustee" can plead limitation.

**Pinpoint.** [1999] 1 All ER 400 at 408–414 (especially 413–414).

**Application to our case.** Gandfors Pty Ltd is a Class 1 trustee — it is the express trustee of the G & G Trust under the trust deed. So *Paragon* does not save the company.

But what about **Alf personally**? Alf was not the trustee; he was a director. If the plaintiffs sue him personally, their claim is necessarily for accessorial liability (knowing assistance, knowing receipt), or for breach of directors' duties to the trustee company. Either way, Alf's relationship with the plaintiffs as beneficiaries is *not* that of a Class 1 trustee. This opens the *Williams v Central Bank of Nigeria* point — see next.

#### 2.2.6 *Williams v Central Bank of Nigeria* [2014] UKSC 10; [2014] AC 1189

**Facts.** Williams alleged he had been defrauded into transferring funds to a Nigerian solicitor's account, and that the funds had then been transferred to the Central Bank of Nigeria. He sued the bank as a knowing recipient/dishonest assistant. The bank pleaded limitation. The action was brought outside 6 years.

**Issue.** Whether s 21(1)(a) of the UK Act (no limitation for fraudulent breach of trust by a "trustee") applied to a person sued as a constructive trustee for dishonest assistance/knowing receipt.

**Held (UK Supreme Court, 4–1).** s 21(1)(a) applies only to those who were *true trustees* (Class 1) at the time of the breach. A defendant sued only as a Class 2 constructive trustee can rely on the 6-year limitation period.

**Pinpoint.** Lord Sumption at [9]–[31]; Lord Neuberger agreeing. Lord Mance dissenting.

**Application to our case — IMPORTANT, BUT MAY NOT SAVE ALF FROM EVERYTHING.**

- *Williams* assists us in arguing that, **as against Alf personally**, s 27(1)(a) does not disapply the limitation period for any cause of action against him as a Class 2 constructive trustee (knowing assistant or knowing recipient).
- However, plaintiffs may sue Alf for breach of *directors' duties* — a statutory cause of action with its own limitation regime — or in equity for breach of fiduciary duty to the company (which has its own analysis). Those claims are not governed by s 27 LAA at all.
- *Williams* does **not** assist Gandfors Pty Ltd. The company is a Class 1 trustee.
- Plaintiffs may also argue that Alf is to be treated as a Class 1 trustee himself by reason of *de facto* control of the trust property. Some Australian cases lean that way, particularly where a director-shareholder treats trust property as his own (see *Ramage v Waclaw* (1988) 12 NSWLR 84; *Drake v Harvey* [2011] EWCA Civ 838 in a different context). The label is contested — we must be alert.

#### 2.2.7 *JJ Harrison (Properties) Ltd v Harrison* [2002] 1 BCLC 162 (CA)

**Facts.** A director (Harrison) caused his company to sell land to him at a substantial undervalue, without disclosing relevant information about its development potential. The company sued years later. The director pleaded limitation.

**Issue.** Whether s 21(1)(b) of the UK Act applied (action to recover trust property or proceeds in the trustee's possession).

**Held.** A director in possession of company property is in the same position as a trustee. Where a director takes company property in breach of duty, s 21(1)(b) applies — **no limitation period** because the property (or its proceeds) was received by him in his capacity as director-fiduciary and converted to his own use.

**Pinpoint.** Chadwick LJ at [25]–[28].

**Application to our case.** *Harrison* shows that **directors are treated as Class 1 trustees of company property**. By analogy, where a director causes a corporate trustee to misapply trust property in his own favour, the courts may well treat him as having received trust property *qua* trustee. This is another route by which plaintiffs may try to put Alf into the Class 1 box.

This is particularly relevant to **s 27(1)(b)** (recovery of trust property received by the trustee and converted to the trustee's use). If Alf received the $1.05M *qua* trustee (rather than *qua* discretionary beneficiary), there may be no limitation period at all — without any need to prove fraud.

Again — defending requires us to anchor every dollar paid to Alf to a discretionary distribution in his favour as a *beneficiary*, not as a *trustee taking from the trust*.

### 2.3 The Australian authorities — extended analysis

#### 2.3.1 *Menegazzo v PricewaterhouseCoopers (a firm)* [2016] QSC 94 (Applegarth J)

**Facts.** Mr Menegazzo, a beneficiary of family trusts, sued the trustees and various professional advisers (PwC and others) over a long-running family financial dispute, alleging breaches of trust and accessorial liability. Limitation was a central issue. The breaches alleged spanned many years.

**Issue.** Whether s 27(1)(a) LAA (Qld) applied to disapply the limitation period.

**Held.** Applegarth J undertook a detailed review of the law on s 27(1)(a). His Honour:
- Adopted *Armitage v Nurse* as the touchstone for "fraud" or "fraudulent breach of trust".
- Confirmed that mere negligence, even gross negligence, does not engage s 27(1)(a).
- Confirmed that the plaintiff bears the onus of proof and that the *Briginshaw* standard applies.
- Adopted the *Paragon Finance / Williams* Class 1/Class 2 distinction in respect of constructive trustees.

**Pinpoint.** [2016] QSC 94 at [220]–[260] (the limitation analysis).

**Application to our case.** *Menegazzo* is the **leading Queensland authority** and we must lead with it. It is the doctrinal anchor for the proposition that:

1. *Armitage v Nurse* states the test in Queensland.
2. The plaintiff bears the onus.
3. The standard is *Briginshaw*.
4. Class 2 constructive trustees can plead limitation.

#### 2.3.2 *Permanent Building Society (in liq) v Wheeler* (1994) 11 WAR 187 (Ipp J)

**Facts.** Directors of Permanent Building Society made various improper investments and loans. The liquidator sued years later. Limitation was raised.

**Issue.** Various, including the proper test for "fraud or fraudulent breach of trust" under the WA equivalent of s 27.

**Held.** Ipp J adopted the *Armitage v Nurse* test. His Honour confirmed that subjective dishonesty or reckless indifference is required.

**Pinpoint.** (1994) 11 WAR 187 at 240–241.

**Application.** Confirms that *Armitage v Nurse* is the Australian standard. Useful supporting authority alongside *Menegazzo*.

#### 2.3.3 *Streeter v Western Areas Exploration Pty Ltd (No 2)* (2011) 278 ALR 291 (WASCA)

**Facts.** Joint venture mining dispute. Allegations of fiduciary breach by joint venturers who allegedly acquired tenements for themselves while owing duties to the JV partner. Limitation was raised.

**Issue.** What is required for "fraud" or "fraudulent breach of trust" for limitation purposes.

**Held.** The WA Court of Appeal applied the *Armitage* test and held that the mental element of dishonesty was satisfied where the fiduciaries deliberately diverted opportunity to themselves knowing they owed duties to the JV partner.

**Pinpoint.** (2011) 278 ALR 291 at [617]–[640] (Murphy JA).

**Application to our case.** A useful reminder that "deliberate diversion of property/opportunity to oneself in the face of a duty to the beneficiaries" is the standard fact pattern for engagement of the fraud exception. This is the territory the plaintiffs will try to put us in.

#### 2.3.4 *Macks v Viscariello* [2017] SASCFC 172

**Facts.** Bankruptcy and trust disputes. Allegations of breach of trust. Limitation raised.

**Held.** SA Full Court applied *Armitage v Nurse* and confirmed the dishonesty/reckless indifference threshold. Also addressed pleading requirements for fraud — must be specifically pleaded with particulars; general assertions are inadequate.

**Pinpoint.** [2017] SASCFC 172 at [240]–[270] (the limitation discussion).

**Application.** Useful for two propositions: (i) Australian uniformity around *Armitage*; (ii) pleading requirements — we should hold the plaintiffs strictly to their fraud particulars and apply pressure on any generalised allegations.

#### 2.3.5 *Hasler v Singtel Optus Pty Ltd* (2014) 87 NSWLR 609 (NSWCA)

**Facts.** Dispute concerning corporate finance arrangements; question whether certain claims could be characterised as breach of trust for limitation purposes.

**Held.** Leeming JA (with whom Macfarlan and Gleeson JJA agreed) reviewed the limitation framework for breach of trust claims. His Honour accepted the *Paragon Finance / Williams* Class 1/Class 2 distinction and confirmed that *Armitage* states the test for "fraudulent breach of trust" in NSW.

**Pinpoint.** (2014) 87 NSWLR 609 at [12]–[42] (the framework discussion).

**Application.** A high-quality NSW intermediate appellate confirmation of the Australian position. Use alongside *Menegazzo*.

#### 2.3.6 *Magyar v Magyar* [2017] NSWSC 1469 (Slattery J)

**Facts.** Family trust dispute between family members. Allegations of breach of trust spanning many years. Limitation raised.

**Held.** Slattery J applied *Armitage v Nurse* and *Williams v Central Bank of Nigeria*. His Honour found that on the facts the trustee had not acted dishonestly or with reckless indifference — he had relied on professional advice and acted in what he believed (mistakenly) was the family's interests.

**Pinpoint.** [2017] NSWSC 1469 at [180]–[210].

**Application to our case — POTENTIALLY USEFUL.** *Magyar* is exactly the kind of family-trust factual scenario we are in. A family member acted as trustee, made a mess of things, but was found not to have acted dishonestly because (i) he relied on professional advice, and (ii) he honestly believed in what he was doing. **If Alf can credibly testify in the *Magyar* mould, this is the case to deploy.** Counsel should look at it closely.

#### 2.3.7 *Belan v Casey* [2002] NSWSC 58 (Bryson J)

**Facts.** Allegations of misappropriation of union funds by officials. Limitation raised.

**Held.** Bryson J applied *Armitage v Nurse* — fraud requires actual dishonesty in the *Royal Brunei* sense. On the facts, the conduct was found to be dishonest because the officials *knew* the payments were not authorised under the union rules.

**Pinpoint.** [2002] NSWSC 58 at [156]–[175].

**Application.** Another confirmation of the *Armitage* test in Australia. Note: the case actually engaged the fraud exception on the facts because of clear knowing misappropriation. Use carefully.

#### 2.3.8 Other relevant Australian cases

- *Daniels v Anderson* (1995) 37 NSWLR 438 — directors' duty of care; reliance on professional advice may protect a director.
- *Howard v Federal Commissioner of Taxation* (2014) 253 CLR 83 — fiduciary obligations and self-dealing.
- *Furs Ltd v Tomkies* (1936) 54 CLR 583 — classic statement of the no-profit/no-conflict rules; relevant if plaintiffs argue Alf took a secret profit.
- *Ramage v Waclaw* (1988) 12 NSWLR 84 — director/shareholder treating company property as own; relevant to characterisation issues.

### 2.4 The "reckless indifference" limb

This is where the real risk for us lies. *Armitage*'s second limb — "recklessly indifferent whether [the conduct] is contrary to the [beneficiaries'] interests or not" — does not require subjective dishonesty in the strong sense. It captures the "I didn't bother to check, I didn't care" trustee.

Australian courts have approached reckless indifference cautiously but firmly. The hallmarks are:

- **Knowledge of relevant facts:** The trustee knows what is happening with the trust property.
- **Awareness of duty:** The trustee knows there is some obligation to the beneficiaries.
- **Failure to engage with the question:** The trustee makes no inquiry, takes no advice, or wilfully ignores the issue.

**Distinguishing reckless indifference from gross negligence is hard.** The line is roughly:
- *Gross negligence*: serious failure to take reasonable care, but with an honest (if negligent) belief that all is well.
- *Reckless indifference*: actual awareness of a real risk that the conduct is contrary to the beneficiaries' interests, coupled with a decision to proceed without resolving that risk.

**On our facts:** The crucial question is whether Alf had any subjective awareness that the plaintiffs *might* be entitled to the money allocated to them. If he did — and proceeded to direct the money to himself anyway — that is recklessness, and probably dishonesty. If he genuinely thought the allocations were a "tax thing" with no legal consequence, he was negligent but not reckless.

Cross-examination will focus on:
- What did Coomber tell him?
- What did Coomber's letters/emails say?
- Did Alf read any of the trust documents?
- Did he know there were beneficiaries (note: he made stepchildren beneficiaries)?
- Did anyone — accountant, solicitor, Megan — ever raise the question of paying the plaintiffs?

We need to be honest with ourselves: **a person with Alf's level of involvement is going to find it very hard to claim he had no awareness whatsoever**. The defence has to be that any awareness he had did not extend to understanding the legal effect of what he was doing — that the gap between "trust income allocated for tax" and "trust income legally owed and payable to beneficiaries" was a gap he never appreciated because he relied on Coomber.

### 2.5 The "party or privy" requirement

s 27(1)(a) requires the trustee to be "party or privy" to the fraud or fraudulent breach of trust.

#### 2.5.1 The trustee is a company

Gandfors Pty Ltd is the trustee. "Party or privy" must be assessed in terms of the company's state of mind. The company has no mind of its own; attribution rules apply.

#### 2.5.2 Attribution

- *Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass* [1972] AC 153 — the "directing mind and will" test. The state of mind of the directing mind is the state of mind of the company.
- *Meridian Global Funds Management Asia Ltd v Securities Commission* [1995] 2 AC 500 — Lord Hoffmann's restatement: attribution depends on the rule of law in question and its purpose. For substantive purposes (rather than just penal), the directing mind/will model usually applies, but a more functional approach may be used where the statute requires.

For the purposes of s 27(1)(a):
- Alf was the principal director (with Megan until 2012). He was the directing mind and will of Gandfors Pty Ltd.
- His knowledge and intent are attributable to the company.
- If Alf was party or privy to fraud, the company was party or privy.

**Conclusion:** We cannot defend Gandfors Pty Ltd by saying "the company was honest, Alf was the bad actor". Alf's mens rea will be the company's mens rea.

#### 2.5.3 Alf personally and the *Williams* point

If Alf is sued personally:

- Alf is *not* the express trustee. The company is.
- Alf is therefore (at most) a Class 2 constructive trustee — for knowing assistance in breach of trust, or knowing receipt of trust property.
- Per *Williams v Central Bank of Nigeria* (UKSC) and *Menegazzo* (QSC): s 21(1)(a) / s 27(1)(a) does not disapply limitation against a Class 2 constructive trustee.
- **Practical implication:** for the personal claim against Alf, the plaintiffs must rely on **s 38** (concealment) to defeat limitation, not s 27(1)(a). And the s 38 path is significantly harder for them.

#### 2.5.4 *But* — the *JJ Harrison* counter

The plaintiffs may run *JJ Harrison* — a director who handles company (or trust) property is treated as a fiduciary in the Class 1 sense. If accepted in this context, Alf personally would be exposed to s 27(1)(a). We should not assume *Williams* is a complete shield. Counsel needs to test this.

---

## PART 3 — APPLICATION TO OUR FACTS

### 3.1 The plaintiffs' best argument for fraud

The plaintiffs will say:

1. Alf controlled the trustee. Megan was a co-director until 2012, but Alf was the dominant voice and the only relevant figure thereafter. Michael's "directorship" (2013–2018) was a sham — he was added to the ASIC register without his knowledge or consent. So in substance, Alf had unilateral control throughout.

2. The plaintiffs were Income and Corpus Beneficiaries with present entitlement on paper for FY2004–FY2013. Approximately $838K was allocated to them. They paid tax on it.

3. They received $26K out of $838K — about 3%.

4. $1,052,952.80 was paid from the trust account to Alf and Megan. That is 1.25 times what was allocated to the plaintiffs and was paid in their place.

5. There were no trustee resolutions for any of the relevant years. So the trustee's "discretion" was not actually exercised in any formal sense for the payments to Alf and Megan. The plaintiffs will say: those payments were *misapplications*, not lawful exercises of discretion.

6. Alf had teenagers sign tax returns without reading them — controlling, secretive behaviour consistent with a deliberate scheme to keep them ignorant.

7. Alf made Michael a director without his knowledge — *forgery*, depending on the documents, or at best, fraudulent ASIC lodgment. This is direct evidence of dishonesty, even if not directly connected to the breaches of trust.

8. The Newstead property was bought for $741K cash in 2021 — Alf and his daughter Ashleigh on title. The plaintiffs will say: this is the trust money, retained and converted, now invested in real estate.

9. After Megan died in 2012, Alf continued the same arrangement. He had the chance to right the ship. He didn't.

10. The plaintiffs only discovered the position in November 2025, when the discrepancy came to light.

The plaintiffs' narrative writes itself: *Alf used a discretionary family trust as a tax fiction, allocating income to his stepchildren so he could exploit their lower tax rates, and then took the money for himself. He hid the truth by ensuring they signed without reading, by appointing one of them as director without telling him, and by never disclosing the trust accounts. When Megan died, he kept doing it. Then he bought a $741K property in cash.*

A judge reading that narrative will not find limitation an attractive answer.

### 3.2 Our best argument AGAINST fraud

We can deploy the following points (the strength of each depends on Alf's instructions):

1. **Coomber as architect.** David Coomber, a chartered accountant, prepared both the trust returns and the plaintiffs' personal returns. The arrangement was *common* in family trust practice in the early 2000s — allocate to all beneficiaries on paper, with physical payments made later or netted against family expenditure. Alf is not an accountant or a lawyer. He took Coomber's advice. Reliance on a competent professional is a recognised answer to dishonesty: *Daniels v Anderson*; *Magyar v Magyar*.

2. **No concealment.** The allocations were lodged with the ATO. They appeared on the plaintiffs' tax returns. The plaintiffs signed those returns. There were no false books. There was no hidden account. The information was there. *Gwembe Valley* — concealment was central; we don't have that here.

3. **The plaintiffs participated.** They signed tax returns showing income they were entitled to. They got the benefit of those returns (e.g., HECS, FTB calculations may have been affected). Whether or not Alf told them to sign without reading, **they had the document in hand**. Reasonable diligence (s 38) should have prompted inquiry. They are not innocent victims of concealment.

4. **The tax fiction was a tax fiction.** If the arrangement was a "tax-driven allocation" (as is common with family trusts), then the trust deed and the resolutions (or absence) should be construed as a single arrangement. The plaintiffs got the tax benefit; the funds were always intended to flow to Alf and Megan as the running family. That is not necessarily *dishonest* — it is a misuse of trust law that is widespread, and prima facie a tax/estate planning failure rather than a fraudulent scheme.

5. **Megan's role.** Megan was co-director until 2012. She was the plaintiffs' mother. Anything done up to 2012 was done with her concurrence. The plaintiffs' allegation that their *own mother* was party to fraud against them is awkward. We should put that allegation squarely.

6. **No trustee resolutions either way.** The absence of resolutions cuts both ways. Yes, it means no formal exercise of discretion to Alf. But it also means no formal determination of present entitlement to the plaintiffs. **This is potentially our most powerful alternative defence**: that there was *never* a valid determination of present entitlement, so the plaintiffs never became creditors of the trust for any sum. That defence sidesteps the limitation/fraud question entirely.

7. **Alf is a beneficiary too.** Alf was a discretionary beneficiary of the G & G Trust. Payments to him are not necessarily trust property "taken" — they are at least arguably distributions in his favour under the trustee's discretion. *Cattley v Pollard* (solicitor stealing client funds) is materially different.

8. **No inconsistent personal lifestyle for years.** If we can show that Alf and Megan lived modestly during the relevant period (FY2004–FY2013), and that the $1.05M was spent on family expenditure (mortgage, school fees, household), then the "self-dealing" narrative weakens. Some of those expenses may have benefited the plaintiffs themselves.

9. **The Newstead property was 2021.** It is removed in time from the alleged breaches (FY2004–FY2013). Source-of-funds tracing across 8 years is hard. There may be intervening sources (sale of other property; superannuation; daughter's contribution).

### 3.3 The problem areas (honest assessment)

Mark, this is where I have to be straight with you.

1. **The quantum is brutal.** $26K to the plaintiffs out of $838K allocated, while $1.05M went to Alf and Megan, is the kind of fact that ends limitation arguments. *Even if* every individual element of the *Armitage* test is contested, a judge will look at the numbers and ask: "Why?" If we can't answer that question persuasively, we're in trouble.

2. **"I didn't understand" is a hard sell for a director.** Alf is a director of a corporate trustee. He has signed annual financials, signed off on tax returns, and (presumably) discussed beneficiary distributions with Coomber. A judge will be sceptical that someone with that level of engagement *truly* did not understand the difference between allocation and payment, sustained over a decade.

3. **The Michael directorship is poison.** If the ASIC records show Michael as a director from 2013–2018 and he genuinely never knew, that is — at best — fraudulent ASIC lodgment, and — at worst — forgery. **This is direct evidence of dishonest conduct around the trust ecosystem.** Plaintiffs will use it as a credit-killer in cross-examination, even though it does not directly relate to the breaches. If the *Briginshaw* threshold is reached on this collateral conduct, the rest of the dishonesty case becomes much easier for the plaintiffs.

4. **The teenagers signing tax returns.** Alf telling Michael (and presumably the others) to sign without reading is, on its face, controlling and concerning. Combined with the quantum, it looks like a deliberate effort to keep them in the dark.

5. **The Newstead property in cash.** $741K cash in 2021 is unusual. Even with intervening sources, the optics are bad. If any part can be traced back to trust funds, *Cattley v Pollard* is closer to in point.

6. **No trustee resolutions across 10 years.** This is a *systemic* failure of trustee administration. It is not a one-off mistake. A judge will read sustained non-compliance as evidence of an unconcerned, perhaps indifferent attitude to the trust's obligations — which is *exactly* the *Armitage* "reckless indifference" zone.

7. **Megan is dead.** This is a litigation problem (she can't give evidence to support the "we both did it together with Coomber" narrative) and a forensic prejudice point (favouring laches), but it is also dangerous: judges sometimes draw adverse inferences against the surviving party where the deceased might have given a contrary version.

### 3.4 Factual questions we MUST put to Alf

**Conduct of the trust generally (FY2004–FY2013)**
1. Did you understand that the trust distributions in the financial statements created a legal obligation to pay the beneficiaries the amounts allocated to them?
2. Who decided how much to allocate to each beneficiary in each year? Was it you, Megan, Coomber, or a discussion among all of you?
3. What did Coomber tell you about the legal effect of the distributions? Did he say "you have to pay them" or did he say "this is just for tax purposes"?
4. Did you ever read the trust deed in full? When?
5. Did you ever obtain legal advice on the operation of the trust? When? From whom?
6. Did you understand that there was a difference between "allocation" and "payment"?
7. What happened to the cash in the trust bank account? Who could draw on it?

**The payments to Alf and Megan**
8. Why were the plaintiffs allocated income but not paid?
9. Was the non-payment of the plaintiffs Coomber's recommendation, your decision, Megan's decision, or a joint decision?
10. Did you intend to pay the plaintiffs at some point?
11. What were the payments to you and Megan for? Were they:
    - treated as your own beneficiary distributions (and if so, why no resolutions);
    - treated as loans (any loan ledger; any repayments);
    - treated as wages or directors' fees (any payslips);
    - treated as reimbursement of family expenses (any records).
12. Can you point us to any documents (letters, emails, file notes from Coomber) that explain the rationale at the time?
13. Did the trust ever have any income that was *not* allocated to a beneficiary on paper? If so, why and where did it go?

**Megan's role**
14. What was Megan's understanding of the arrangement?
15. Did Megan know the plaintiffs weren't being paid the amounts allocated?
16. Did you and Megan ever discuss paying the plaintiffs?
17. Are there any communications (emails, letters, notes) that show Megan's knowledge or participation in the arrangement?

**The plaintiffs' knowledge**
18. Did you tell the plaintiffs they were beneficiaries? When?
19. Did you ever discuss with the plaintiffs how the trust operated?
20. Did you give them copies of trust accounts? Annual reports?
21. Did Coomber ever communicate with the plaintiffs about their tax returns? Did they ever ask questions?
22. Did the plaintiffs ever ask about the income allocated to them?
23. Did they have access to the lodged tax returns showing the trust distributions?

**The signing of tax returns**
24. Specifically: what did you say to Michael when you asked him to sign the tax returns?
25. Did you actively prevent any plaintiff from reading their return? If so, why?
26. Did Coomber meet with the plaintiffs separately? Or only with you?

**Michael's directorship (2013–2018)**
27. Why was Michael appointed a director of Gandfors Pty Ltd in 2013?
28. Who lodged the ASIC Form 484?
29. Did Michael sign a Consent to Act (Form 304 or equivalent)? Where is it?
30. Was Michael told he was a director? When did he find out?
31. Why was he removed in 2018?

**Newstead property**
32. How was the $741K cash purchase in 2021 funded?
33. Bank statements / source documents for the funds?
34. What was Ashleigh's contribution?
35. Did any part of the funds derive — directly or indirectly — from trust account moneys?

**After Megan's death**
36. After Megan died in 2012, did you consider paying the plaintiffs their accrued entitlements?
37. Did you take any advice — accounting or legal — about the trust after she died?
38. Why did the trust stop allocating income to the plaintiffs after FY2013?
39. What happened to the trust after FY2013? Did it continue to operate?

**Coomber**
40. Where is David Coomber now? Is he still practising?
41. Do we have his file? His correspondence with you? His letters of advice?
42. Did Coomber prepare any explanatory documents (e.g., letters of engagement, cover letters with the trust accounts) explaining the arrangement to anyone?

**The $26K paid to the plaintiffs**
43. What were the $26K of payments for? What years? What plaintiff?
44. Why those amounts and not more?

---

## PART 4 — THE CONCEALMENT QUESTION (s 38 LAA)

### 4.1 Section 38 in operation

s 38 postpones the running of the limitation period until the plaintiff "has discovered the fraud or the mistake, as the case may be, or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it". Three pathways:

- **s 38(1)(a):** action *based on* the defendant's fraud (or his agent's, etc.).
- **s 38(1)(b):** the right of action has been *concealed by the fraud* of the defendant or his agent.
- **s 38(1)(c):** action for *relief from the consequences of mistake*.

For our plaintiffs, the live pathways are (a) and (b), and possibly (c) if any payments are characterised as having been made under mistake.

### 4.2 The "concealed by fraud" standard

"Concealed by fraud" is a broader concept than "fraud" itself in the *Armitage* sense. It includes:

- Active misrepresentation.
- Deliberate suppression of facts the defendant has a duty to disclose.
- Conduct so unconscionable that equity will treat it as concealment.

Authorities:
- *Kitchen v RAF Association* [1958] 1 WLR 563 — equitable concealment; need not be deliberate dishonesty in the strict sense.
- *King v Victor Parsons & Co* [1973] 1 WLR 29 — Lord Denning MR: knowing concealment of a wrong against a person to whom you owe a duty.
- *Cave v Robinson Jarvis & Rolf* [2003] 1 AC 384 — UK Supreme Court tightening the test (under the UK Act): some element of culpability required.
- *Hagan v Wright* (1995) 36 NSWLR 470 — Australian application.

**For our case:** Even if the plaintiffs cannot prove dishonesty in the *Armitage* sense, they may argue that Alf, *qua* fiduciary, owed a duty to disclose to them the operation of the trust and the existence of their entitlements, and that his failure to do so is "concealment by fraud" in the equitable sense.

The defence answer:
- The information was not concealed — it was in lodged tax returns the plaintiffs signed.
- They had constructive knowledge of their beneficial interests from no later than each tax return.
- Reasonable diligence would have led them to ask: "Why am I being taxed on income I never received?" That question, asked at any point in 22 years, would have unravelled the arrangement.

### 4.3 The "reasonable diligence" gate

s 38 is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for sleeping plaintiffs. The test is whether, with **reasonable diligence**, the plaintiffs *could* have discovered the position earlier. Reasonable diligence is judged objectively against:

- The information available to the plaintiff.
- The plaintiff's relationship to the events (here: a beneficiary of a family trust, being taxed on trust income).
- What an ordinary person in their position would have done.

**The plaintiffs' tax returns are devastating to the s 38 case.** Each year from FY2004 onwards, the plaintiffs received and signed tax returns showing income from the G & G Trust. They paid tax on that income. Any reasonable adult signing a tax return showing $50K+ of trust income they had not actually received would ask: "Where is this money?"

The plaintiffs will say: "I was a teenager — I didn't read it — Alf told me to sign." Even if true, that gets them through the early years. But:

- By the time each plaintiff was 21 (or even 18), the diligence standard tightens.
- They had ongoing tax returns for 10 years.
- They were beneficiaries of a trust they presumably knew existed (Megan was their mother — discretionary trusts are often discussed in families).
- After Megan died in 2012, no further tax returns appear to have been involved (allocations stopped at FY2013), but they had 13 years from 2012 to 2025 to ask basic questions.

**Authorities on reasonable diligence:**
- *Doe d. Macartney v Crick* (1844) — long-standing principle.
- *Sheldon v RHM Outhwaite (Underwriting Agencies) Ltd* [1996] AC 102 — UK approach to reasonable diligence.
- *Coulthard v Disco Mix Club Ltd* [2000] 1 WLR 707 — claimant must take such steps as would ordinarily be taken by a reasonable person in his position.

Application: *the plaintiffs cannot successfully argue they could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered the breach earlier than November 2025*. The tax returns alone defeat that argument for most of the 22-year window.

### 4.4 Michael's directorship (2013–2018)

This is a specific issue. Michael was a director of Gandfors Pty Ltd from 2013 to 2018. ASIC records would have shown his directorship. **In law, a director has a right of access to the company's books and records.** Even if Michael genuinely did not know he was a director, the fact that ASIC records publicly identified him as one is significant: the information was *available*.

However, the plaintiffs will say: how can you have constructive knowledge of being a director when you didn't know you were a director? That argument has force. We can't push too hard on this point without inviting a counter-argument that the directorship itself was a fraudulent appointment.

**Net effect:** Michael's directorship cuts both ways for s 38 — formally available information (against him), but obtained through a process that is itself problematic (in his favour). On balance, it probably helps us slightly to defeat his s 38 case, but it is fragile.

### 4.5 Conclusion on s 38

We have a **strong** answer to s 38 based on:
1. The information was not concealed — it was in lodged returns.
2. The plaintiffs had constructive knowledge from each tax return.
3. Reasonable diligence would have led them to inquire long before November 2025.
4. They have not pleaded a credible explanation for the 22-year delay.

But s 38 is not the main game — s 27(1)(a) is. Even if s 38 is defeated on diligence, the action survives if s 27(1)(a) is engaged.

---

## PART 5 — THE LACHES BACKSTOP

### 5.1 Can laches apply where s 27(1)(a) is engaged?

Yes — but cautiously. The English position (*Patel v Shah* [2005] EWCA Civ 157; *Re Loftus* [2006] EWCA Civ 1124) is that laches *can* apply to disentitle a beneficiary from equitable relief even where s 21(1)(a) (UK) disapplies the limitation period. The Australian position is consistent: laches is an independent equitable doctrine that operates on the conscience of the court, regardless of any statutory bar.

Key Australian cases:
- *Orr v Ford* (1989) 167 CLR 316 — the High Court on laches.
- *Hourigan v Trustees Executors and Agency Co Ltd* (1934) 51 CLR 619 — laches in trust actions.
- *Lamshed v Lamshed* (1963) 109 CLR 440 — laches and acquiescence.

### 5.2 Laches in fraud cases

Courts are slower to apply laches in fraud cases — the "clean hands" doctrine cuts against a fraudulent defendant invoking equitable principles. *But* laches can still apply where:

- The fraudulent conduct was discovered or should have been discovered long ago.
- The plaintiff has acquiesced in the conduct after knowledge.
- Forensic prejudice is severe.

### 5.3 Forensic prejudice — our argument

We have substantial forensic prejudice arguments:

1. **Megan is dead** (2012). She was co-director and equally responsible for the trust administration during half the relevant period. Her evidence is unavailable. We cannot put to her: what was your understanding of the arrangement? Did you tell the plaintiffs?
2. **Coomber's records** — depending on his current status. If retired, deceased, or records lost, this is forensic prejudice. Coomber's contemporaneous file is the single most important external evidence of the rationale for the arrangement.
3. **Documentary records** — bank statements, trust ledgers, correspondence — over 22 years. Banks' record-keeping obligations are 7 years. Older records may be irrecoverable.
4. **Memory** — Alf is being asked to recall conversations and decisions made 13–22 years ago.

### 5.4 Strength of the laches argument

**Modest but real.** The High Court has been cautious about applying laches against beneficiaries of express trusts (*Hourigan*). But the combination of (i) actual or constructive knowledge from each tax return, (ii) 22-year delay, and (iii) severe forensic prejudice (Megan's death, Coomber issues, lost records) is a serious laches case.

Counsel should expect to run laches as a fallback even if s 27(1)(a) is engaged — particularly for the years before 2010 where forensic prejudice is most acute.

---

## PART 6 — REALISTIC ASSESSMENT

### 6.1 Probability of successfully running limitation

**Overall — without further instructions from Alf:** **20–35%**.

The key driver of variability is what Alf can credibly say about:
1. His understanding of the legal effect of the allocations.
2. The role Coomber played in designing the arrangement.
3. The destination of the $1.05M paid to him and Megan.
4. The Michael directorship.

#### Scenario A — "Coomber set it all up, I didn't understand"

If Alf can say (and back up with documents) that Coomber recommended the arrangement, explained it as a tax minimisation strategy, never told him there was an obligation to physically pay the plaintiffs, and that he treated payments to himself and Megan as ordinary household money under Coomber's supervision —

**Prospects: 45–55%.**

This puts us into *Magyar v Magyar* and *Daniels v Anderson* territory. The *Armitage* test is not engaged because Alf was negligent, mistaken, and reliant on professional advice — not dishonest or recklessly indifferent. The plaintiffs would still have the s 38 path, but on the merits we beat that on reasonable diligence.

The *risks remaining* in Scenario A:
- The Michael directorship still bites — that is *separate dishonesty* that may rub off as a credit issue.
- The quantum still requires explanation. If $1.05M went to Alf and Megan and *only* $26K went to the plaintiffs, even an honestly mistaken trustee should have noticed at some point.
- Coomber-as-architect requires Coomber to be available and to support Alf's account. If Coomber denies it, we are exposed.

#### Scenario B — "I knew the money was going to me but I thought that was OK"

If Alf says he knew the money was going to him, but he believed (perhaps wrongly) that he was entitled to it because he was also a beneficiary, or because the trust was "the family kitty" —

**Prospects: 30–40%.**

This is harder. Subjective awareness of where the money was going makes the *Armitage* test much closer to engaged. The defence argument is that *Armitage* requires knowledge that the conduct is *contrary to the beneficiaries' interests*, not just knowledge of the conduct itself. Alf can say: "I didn't know the plaintiffs were entitled to the money; I thought it was discretionary and I was choosing to pay myself."

But:
- The annual allocations to the plaintiffs in the financial statements show the trust *did* recognise their entitlement.
- The absence of resolutions in his favour cuts against him — there was no formal exercise of discretion to pay him.
- A court may find this version is reckless indifference in the *Armitage* sense.

#### Scenario C — Alf can't explain why the plaintiffs weren't paid

If Alf has no coherent answer — if his evidence is "I don't really remember" or "Coomber dealt with it" without more —

**Prospects: 10–20%.**

In a fraud assessment under *Briginshaw*, the court does not require positive proof of dishonesty if the inference from the facts is overwhelming. *Briginshaw* protects against findings of fraud on flimsy evidence; it does not protect a defendant who declines to give an explanation when one is plainly called for.

The plaintiffs will lead the quantum, the absence of resolutions, the Michael directorship, the Newstead property, and ask the court to infer dishonest or reckless indifference. Without Alf's positive narrative, that inference is hard to defeat.

### 6.2 What we need to make limitation work

**Evidence/instructions:**
1. Coomber's complete file: engagement letters, correspondence, file notes, financial statements, tax returns.
2. Coomber's witness statement (or section 77 court affidavit if he is unwilling). If Coomber will support Alf's account, this is gold. If not, we need to know now.
3. Alf's full account on every question in §3.4 above.
4. Bank statements from the trust account, ideally for the entire period.
5. Documents around the Michael directorship — Form 484, any Consent to Act, correspondence with Coomber.
6. Evidence of Megan's involvement and contemporaneous understanding.
7. Source-of-funds for the Newstead property — bank statements, conveyancing file, any sale of antecedent assets.
8. Trust resolutions — even one or two would help.

**Legal arguments:**
1. *Armitage v Nurse* threshold — primary anchor.
2. *Menegazzo* (QSC) — Queensland authority on the test.
3. *Magyar v Magyar* (NSWSC) — best factual analogue.
4. *Williams v Central Bank of Nigeria* — for the personal claim against Alf (Class 2 limitation).
5. *Paragon Finance* — Class 1/Class 2 framework.
6. *Daniels v Anderson* — reliance on professional advice.
7. s 38 — strong reasonable diligence answer using the tax returns.
8. Laches — forensic prejudice arguments.

**Pleading strategy:**
1. Plead the limitation defence under s 27(2) LAA.
2. Plead that the matters in s 27(1)(a) and s 27(1)(b) are not engaged — particulars to be provided, but the burden lies with the plaintiffs.
3. Plead s 38 reasonable diligence answer — particulars of constructive knowledge from tax returns.
4. Plead laches and acquiescence as a separate equitable defence.
5. Plead, in the alternative, that there was no valid determination of present entitlement (no resolutions) — so no debt arose; and that the alleged trust account is to be reconstructed on equitable principles (which has its own separate limitation/laches answer).

### 6.3 Recommendation

**1. Do not run limitation as the SOLE defence.**

The risk of fraud being made out is real (20–35% all-up), and even if we win on limitation, fraud findings against Alf in the alternative would be reputationally and personally catastrophic. We need a defence that holds up *even if* limitation falls.

**2. Plead in the alternative.**

The defence should plead, in this order:

(a) **No valid determination of present entitlement** — there were no trustee resolutions, no formal exercise of discretion, no document creating a debt owing to the plaintiffs. The "allocations" in financial statements were tax-driven entries, not legally effective resolutions. Without a valid determination, the plaintiffs were never creditors of the trust for any sum. *This sidesteps both fraud and limitation entirely.* This may well be our strongest defence.

(b) **Accord and satisfaction / arrangement with Coomber** — to the extent the financial statements created any entitlement, the arrangement was that Coomber would bring entitlements into account against subsequent distributions, family expenditure, or otherwise. This may be pleaded as variation of trust or as estoppel.

(c) **Limitation under s 27(2) LAA** — primary defence, with full particulars resisting s 27(1)(a) and s 27(1)(b).

(d) **s 38 LAA reasonable diligence** — answer to any concealment plea by the plaintiffs.

(e) **Laches and acquiescence** — equitable backstop.

(f) **Defence on quantum** — even if liability is established, the $1.05M paid to Alf and Megan included payments referable to (i) Alf's own entitlements as a beneficiary, (ii) loans repaid, (iii) family expenditure that benefited all family members including the plaintiffs.

**3. Settlement strategy.**

We should be active in seeking settlement:
- The fraud risk is real.
- A finding of fraudulent breach of trust would be career-defining for Alf — even if the *quantum* is modest.
- *Briginshaw* protects against weak fraud findings, but we have several factors (Michael directorship, quantum, absent resolutions, Newstead property) that raise the inference.
- Settlement at a figure that resolves the action without admissions is preferable to a trial where fraud is in issue.

A reasonable settlement bracket — without prejudicing the case — would consider:
- Plaintiffs' notional entitlement: $838K allocated less $26K paid = $812K.
- Plus interest from each year of allocation? At 6% pa simple from FY2004 — ≈ $1.0M+.
- Discounted for limitation/fraud risk (their side) and litigation risk (our side).
- A range of perhaps $400K–$700K may settle the claim, depending on Alf's willingness and asset position.

**4. Counsel.**

This matter warrants counsel's involvement now — not after the defence is filed. The fraud question is delicate, the pleading needs to be rigorous, and the s 27(1)(b) issue (recovery of trust property in trustee's hands) is a substantial separate research piece. I recommend briefing senior junior counsel with experience in trusts/insolvency litigation for a conference and an opinion before the defence is finalised.

**5. Immediate steps.**

(a) Conference with Alf — full instructions on every question in §3.4. **This week.**
(b) Subpoena/request: Coomber's complete file. **This week.**
(c) Locate Coomber and assess his availability and likely position. **This week.**
(d) Trust account bank statements — full historical record. **Next 2 weeks.**
(e) Newstead conveyancing file and source-of-funds documentation.
(f) Brief to counsel for opinion on (i) defence pleading; (ii) s 27(1)(b) risk; (iii) settlement strategy.

---

## ANNEXURE — KEY AUTHORITIES (CITATION LIST)

**English**
- *Armitage v Nurse* [1998] Ch 241 (CA) — leading case on "fraud or fraudulent breach of trust"
- *Thorne v Heard* [1895] AC 495 (HL) — agent's fraud not infecting honest principal
- *Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan* [1995] 2 AC 378 (PC) — dishonesty in equity
- *Gwembe Valley Development Co Ltd v Koshy (No 3)* [2003] EWCA Civ 1048 — director's secret profit
- *Cattley v Pollard* [2006] EWHC 3130 (Ch); [2007] Ch 353 — solicitor taking client funds
- *Paragon Finance plc v DB Thakerar & Co* [1999] 1 All ER 400 (CA) — Class 1/Class 2 distinction
- *Williams v Central Bank of Nigeria* [2014] UKSC 10; [2014] AC 1189 — limitation and accessories
- *JJ Harrison (Properties) Ltd v Harrison* [2002] 1 BCLC 162 (CA) — director as trustee of company property
- *Kitchen v RAF Association* [1958] 1 WLR 563 — concealment by fraud
- *King v Victor Parsons & Co* [1973] 1 WLR 29 — concealment doctrine
- *Cave v Robinson Jarvis & Rolf* [2003] 1 AC 384 — limitation and concealment
- *Sheldon v RHM Outhwaite* [1996] AC 102 — reasonable diligence
- *Patel v Shah* [2005] EWCA Civ 157 — laches alongside statutory limitation
- *Re Loftus (deceased)* [2006] EWCA Civ 1124 — laches in trust claims
- *Re Diplock* [1948] Ch 465 — honest mistake of trustee

**Australian (Queensland and other states)**
- *Menegazzo v PricewaterhouseCoopers* [2016] QSC 94 (Applegarth J) — leading QLD authority
- *Permanent Building Society (in liq) v Wheeler* (1994) 11 WAR 187 — WA application of *Armitage*
- *Streeter v Western Areas Exploration Pty Ltd (No 2)* (2011) 278 ALR 291 — WACA fiduciary breach/limitation
- *Macks v Viscariello* [2017] SASCFC 172 — SA Full Court
- *Hasler v Singtel Optus Pty Ltd* (2014) 87 NSWLR 609 — NSWCA framework
- *Magyar v Magyar* [2017] NSWSC 1469 — family trust factual analogue
- *Belan v Casey* [2002] NSWSC 58 — knowing misappropriation
- *Pullen v Gutteridge Haskins & Davey Pty Ltd* [1993] 1 VR 27 — onus on limitation
- *Seymour v Seymour* (1996) 40 NSWLR 358 — onus on plaintiff to prove fraud exception
- *Hamilton v Kaljo* (1989) 17 NSWLR 381 — onus
- *Banque Commerciale SA v Akhil Holdings* (1990) 169 CLR 279 — pleading fraud with particulars
- *Briginshaw v Briginshaw* (1938) 60 CLR 336 — standard of proof for serious allegations
- *Daniels v Anderson* (1995) 37 NSWLR 438 — directors' reliance on professional advice
- *Howard v FCT* (2014) 253 CLR 83 — fiduciary self-dealing
- *Furs Ltd v Tomkies* (1936) 54 CLR 583 — no-profit/no-conflict
- *Ramage v Waclaw* (1988) 12 NSWLR 84 — director treating company property as own
- *Orr v Ford* (1989) 167 CLR 316 — laches
- *Hourigan v Trustees Executors and Agency Co Ltd* (1934) 51 CLR 619 — laches in trust actions
- *Lamshed v Lamshed* (1963) 109 CLR 440 — laches and acquiescence
- *Hagan v Wright* (1995) 36 NSWLR 470 — concealment under Australian limitation regime
- *Meridian Global Funds Management Asia Ltd v Securities Commission* [1995] 2 AC 500 — corporate attribution
- *Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass* [1972] AC 153 — directing mind/will

---

*End of memo. Prepared by BossLawyerAI for the principal solicitor. Privileged work product.*