Catchwords:

TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES – where respondents invested in secured income mortgage fund for purpose of obtaining a significant investor visa – where primary judge found that corporate trustee of fund committed breaches of trust by making three improper loans – where breaches of trust were dishonest and fraudulent – where primary judge found that appellant directors knowingly assisted in the dishonest and fraudulent design – where primary judge found that appellant directors knowingly procured or induced certain breaches – where primary judge found that appellant directors had actual knowledge of the relevant dishonest and fraudulent breaches of trust – where appellant directors did not contest finding of primary judge that corporate trustee was in breach of trust by making loans because they were imprudent investments in hazardous securities – where appellant directors did not contest finding of primary judge that two of the three loans were made for an improper purpose

EQUITY – where primary judge held that a director of a trustee company, whose conduct is the conduct of the trustee that involves a breach of trust, can be liable either for knowingly procuring or inducing a breach or for knowingly assisting in a dishonest and fraudulent design – where primary judge awarded respondent directors equitable compensation – consideration of the so-called principle in Said v Butt [1920] 3 KB 497 – held that a director acting as such can knowingly induce or procure a breach of trust, or knowingly assist in a dishonest and fraudulent design, by a trustee company of which that person is a director, when the directors lack relevant bona fides because they acted in their own personal interest and contrary to the interests of the company in breach of their duties to it – held that in such circumstances the principle in Said v Butt has no application – where notice of contention allowed

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where appellants contended that pleas of accessorial liability were not properly pleaded – where appellant contended that primary judge failed to give adequate reasons for finding that he had knowledge of the breaches of trust to render him liable for knowingly procuring those breaches or knowingly assisting in them

COSTS – where primary judge awarded successful defendant 20% of his costs – where discretion of primary judge miscarried – where leave to appeal granted and appeal allowed – where order made in lieu that the plaintiffs below pay successful defendant’s costs of the proceeding