The case arose from a long‑standing family dispute concerning the control and administration of four family trusts established by the late Reginald Denver Gowar. The appellants (a mother and one son) and the respondents (the other son and his business partner) were trustees and/or beneficiaries of the trusts, which primarily owned farms, farming equipment and livestock. Serious conflict developed between the two brothers regarding the management of the trusts, particularly farming operations, accounting, alleged misappropriation of trust assets, and alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The appellants applied in the High Court for the removal of the respondents as trustees, the appointment of new trustees, and authority to terminate the trusts. The respondents opposed and counter‑applied for the removal of the second appellant as trustee. The High Court dismissed both the main application and the counter‑application, finding no sufficient grounds for removal or termination. Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
The appeal and cross‑appeal were both dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel. The High Court’s order dismissing both the main application and the counter‑application was confirmed.
The judgment clarifies that s 20(1) of the Trust Property Control Act does not oust the court’s inherent common‑law power to remove trustees, but that removal will only be ordered where it is in the interests of the trust and beneficiaries. It also reinforces the high threshold for terminating or varying trusts under s 13 of the Act and confirms that mere conflict among trustees or beneficiaries does not justify judicial intervention. The case is an important authority on trustee removal, trust administration disputes, and the limits of court intervention in family trust conflicts.