Abstract
As with many things trust, the equitable rules defining a trustee’s right to an indemnity for acting as a trustee are shrouded in mystery. In particular, the issue of whether that right confers on the trustee an actual proprietary, in rem, beneficial, interest in the trust’s assets or merely an equitable right to access those assets to pay the trust’s debts in priority to the beneficiaries receiving them, has never been addressed by the highest court in any Commonwealth country. In a recent decision involving a priority claim by two creditors over the remaining surplus arising from the insolvency of a trading trust, the High Court of Australia, by a slim majority of 4-3, has held that the trustee does have a proprietary right to the trust’s assets. Joel Nitikman suggests that the majority’s reasoning and the jurisprudential basis on which it rests is either weak or ambiguous; the minority’s reasoning, to the effect that the trustee has only a preferential claim to the assets, is to be preferred.