Two Hats: Administrator & Super fund beneficiary = breach of fiduciary duty and account for profits

Her Honour Justice Atkinson delivered judgement on the case of McIntosh v McIntosh on 16 May 2014.

This case involved an application for directions by the Administrator of an estate regarding the superannuation proceeds paid directly to her as beneficiary (at the discretion of the trustees). The administrator was the deceased’s mother. The deceased was survived by his parents.

The respondent was the deceased’s father who claimed that the deceased’s mother breached her duty as Administrator of the estate by seeking to retain and retaining the superannuation benefit proceeds in her personal capacity.  The superannuation proceeds were in excess of $400k.

The deceased lived with his mother at the time of his death.  The superannuation policy had a non-binding nomination. The trustees of all three funds paid the proceeds to the deceased’s on the basis on relationships of financial and inter-dependency relationships.

The Court found that the deceased’s mother had a clear conflict in her duty as Administrator vs her own personal interests by seeking and retaining the superannuation proceeds.

The Court ordered that the deceased’s mother pay the super proceeds to the estate to be distributed pursuant to the rules of intestacy.

You can read the case here.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s