Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 301

Court holds SMSF trustees accountable

The recent case of Re Marsella [2019] VSC 65 (‘Re Marsella’) concerned a dispute over superannuation death benefits. This decision highlights the importance of SMSF trustees exercising their discretion to pay death benefits in good faith, with genuine consideration and in accordance with the purpose for which the power was conferred.

It is an important decision in the context of superannuation law as the Court ultimately removed the trustee on the basis that the discretion was not exercised appropriately.

Facts of the case

The case concerned the payment of death benefits from the Swanston Superannuation Fund (‘Fund’). Helen Marsella was the sole member of the Fund and her daughter from her first marriage, Caroline Wareham (‘Caroline’), was a co-trustee.

Helen Marsella died in April 2016, at which time her Fund balance was an estimated $450,416. She was also survived by her husband of 32 years and executor of the estate, Riccardo Marsella (‘Riccardo’).

Following the death, the relationship between Riccardo and Caroline became strained and a dispute arose when Caroline, as trustee of the Fund, appointed her husband Martin Wareham (‘Martin’) as a co-trustee. Immediately before Martin was appointed, Caroline exercised her discretion to pay the deceased’s death benefits in her own favour. Immediately after Martin was appointed, Caroline and Martin re-made the same decision to pay the deceased’s death benefits in Caroline’s own favour.

In response, Riccardo sought the removal of Caroline and Martin as trustees of the Fund, the appointment of a new independent trustee and the repayment of the death benefits with interest to the Fund. Riccardo made submissions that the trustees did not exercise good faith, with a real and genuine consideration of the interests of the Fund’s beneficiaries and accordingly the payment to Caroline should be set aside.

Caroline and Martin made submissions that the deed provided them with absolute discretion in relation to the payment of death benefits and submitted that they were not required to provide reasons for their decisions.

Key questions for the Court

The Court considered:

  • Whether Caroline and Martin properly exercised their discretion in good faith, with real and genuine consideration and for the proper purpose for which the power was conferred.
  • Whether Caroline and Martin should be removed.
  • Whether a new, independent trustee should be appointed in their place.

The decision on a failure to exercise proper discretion

McMillan J held that Caroline and Martin failed to exercise their discretion in good faith with a real genuine consideration of the interests of the Fund’s beneficiaries and subsequently removed Caroline and Martin from the office of trustee.

When considering whether their discretion was exercised appropriately, McMillan J looked at whether they had acted in good faith and in accordance with the conferred power’s proper purpose.

McMillan J emphasised that Caroline’s actions, particularly in relation to her arbitrary payment of benefits to herself was conducted with "… ignorance of, or insolence toward, her duties …" and was beyond "mere carelessness" or "honest blundering".

In the context of the improper exercise of discretion and the significant personal acrimony between Caroline and Riccardo, McMillan J held that Caroline and Martin were to be removed as trustees of the Fund. Moreover, it was held that Riccardo was to file further submissions for the appointment of an independent trustee to ensure that the Fund met the definition of a complying superannuation fund for the purposes of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth).

Trustee duties of good faith and genuine consideration

It can be drawn from this decision that while an SMSF trust deed may afford unfettered discretion (eg, in relation to payment of death benefits), SMSF trustees must ensure that they exercise their discretion in "good faith, upon real and genuine consideration and in accordance with the purposes for which the discretion was conferred". This is consistent with the well-established principles in Karger v Paul [1984] VR 161 regarding the proper administration of a trust and in what circumstances a trustee’s exercise of discretionary powers may be challenged.

Trustees must act impartially and in good faith. In Re Marsella, Caroline’s actions were found to be inconsistent with these standards. Among other things, she was found to have acted arbitrarily when distributing the death benefits to herself, with indifference towards her duties. McMillan J also found that Caroline had failed to properly inform herself in the proper discharge of her duties which required her to properly consider the estate as a potential beneficiary, and correspondence between her lawyer and Riccardo evidenced a dismissive tenor.

Moreover, this decision highlights the importance that trustees exercise their powers in accordance with the purpose for which they were conferred.

Where there has been a break down in relationships, SMSF trustees need to be especially mindful that they do not let any prejudices interfere with their proper exercise of trustee duties and high-handed communication with potential beneficiaries can be grounds for setting aside a decision in relation to the payment of death benefits.

What impact does this have for SMSFs?

In light of this decision, SMSF trustees should consider reviewing their SMSF succession planning to ensure the fund is properly managed on the loss of capacity or death of a member. In particular, SMSF trustees should ensure that the fund is placed in trusted hands and importantly, SMSF trustees should seek independent, specialist legal advice where uncertainties arise. This is particularly crucial where the fund has a significant balance or if there are any complexities.

 

Kimberley Noah is a lawyer, and Bryce Figot a special counsel at leading SMSF law firm DBA Lawyers. This article is for general information only and should not be relied upon without first seeking advice from an appropriately qualified professional.

RELATED ARTICLES

Avoid these top five errors in your SMSF annual return

The impact of our marriage breakdown on our SMSF

SMSFs during COVID-19 and your 14-point checklist

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

Three all-time best tables for every adviser and investor

It's a remarkable statistic. In any year since 1875, if you had invested in the Australian stock index, turned away and come back eight years later, your average return would be 120% with no negative periods.

The looming excess of housing and why prices will fall

Never stand between Australian households and an uncapped government programme with $3 billion in ‘free money’ to build or renovate their homes. But excess supply is coming with an absence of net migration.

Five stocks that have worked well in our portfolios

Picking macro trends is difficult. What may seem logical and compelling one minute may completely change a few months later. There are better rewards from focussing on identifying the best companies at good prices.

Let's make this clear again ... franking credits are fair

Critics of franking credits are missing the main point. The taxable income of shareholders/taxpayers must also include the company tax previously paid to the ATO before the dividend was distributed. It is fair.

Survey responses on pension eligibility for wealthy homeowners

The survey drew a fantastic 2,000 responses with over 1,000 comments and polar opposite views on what is good policy. Do most people believe the home should be in the age pension asset test, and what do they say?

Latest Updates

Investment strategies

Joe Hockey on the big investment influences on Australia

Former Treasurer Joe Hockey became Australia's Ambassador to the US and he now runs an office in Washington, giving him a unique perspective on geopolitical issues. They have never been so important for investors.

Investment strategies

The tipping point for investing in decarbonisation

Throughout time, transformative technology has changed the course of human history, but it is easy to be lulled into believing new technology will also transform investment returns. Where's the tipping point?

Exchange traded products

The options to gain equity exposure with less risk

Equity investing pays off over long terms but comes with risks in the short term that many people cannot tolerate, especially retirees preserving capital. There are ways to invest in stocks with little downside.

Exchange traded products

8 ways LIC bonus options can benefit investors

Bonus options issued by Listed Investment Companies (LICs) deliver many advantages but there is a potential dilutionary impact if options are exercised well below the share price. This must be factored in.

Retirement

Survey responses on pension eligibility for wealthy homeowners

The survey drew a fantastic 2,000 responses with over 1,000 comments and polar opposite views on what is good policy. Do most people believe the home should be in the age pension asset test, and what do they say?

Investment strategies

Three demographic themes shaping investments for the future

Focussing on companies that will benefit from slow moving, long duration and highly predictable demographic trends can help investors predict future opportunities. Three main themes stand out.

Fixed interest

It's not high return/risk equities versus low return/risk bonds

High-yield bonds carry more risk than investment grade but they offer higher income returns. An allocation to high-yield bonds in a portfolio - alongside equities and other bonds – is worth considering.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2021 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.

Website Development by Master Publisher.