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?

House prices surge but falls are common and coming

We tend to forget that house prices often fall. Direct lending controls are more effective than rate rises because macroprudential limits affect the volume of money for housing leaving business rates untouched.

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?

100 Aussies: five charts on who earns, pays and owns

Any policy decision needs to recognise who is affected by a change. It pays to check the data on who pays taxes, who owns assets and who earns the income to ensure an equitable and efficient outcome.

Three good comments from the pension asset test article

With articles on the pensions assets test read about 40,000 times, 3,500 survey responses and thousands of comments, there was a lot of great reader participation. A few comments added extra insights.

The sorry saga of housing affordability and ownership

It is hard to think of any area of widespread public concern where the same policies have been pursued for so long, in the face of such incontrovertible evidence that they have failed to achieve their objectives.

Latest Updates

Strategy

$1 billion and counting: how consultants maximise fees

Despite cutbacks in public service staff, we are spending over a billion dollars a year with five consulting firms. There is little public scrutiny on the value for money. How do consultants decide what to charge?

Investment strategies

Two strong themes and companies that will benefit

There are reasons to believe inflation will stay under control, and although we may see a slowing in the global economy, two companies should benefit from the themes of 'Stable Compounders' and 'Structural Winners'.

Financial planning

Reducing the $5,300 upfront cost of financial advice

Many financial advisers have left the industry because it costs more to produce advice than is charged as an up-front fee. Advisers are valued by those who use them while the unadvised don’t see the need to pay.

Strategy

Many people misunderstand what life expectancy means

Life expectancy numbers are often interpreted as the likely maximum age of a person but that is incorrect. Here are three reasons why the odds are in favor of people outliving life expectancy estimates.

Investment strategies

Slowing global trade not the threat investors fear

Investors ask whether global supply chains were stretched too far and too complex, and following COVID, is globalisation dead? New research suggests the impact on investment returns will not be as great as feared.

Investment strategies

Wealth doesn’t equal wisdom for 'sophisticated' investors

'Sophisticated' investors can be offered securities without the usual disclosure requirements given to everyday investors, but far more people now qualify than was ever intended. Many are far from sophisticated.

Investment strategies

Is the golden era for active fund managers ending?

Most active fund managers are the beneficiaries of a confluence of favourable events. As future strong returns look challenging, passive is rising and new investors do their own thing, a golden age may be closing.

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.