The Trusts Act 2025 (Qld) (Act) commences today, repealing and replacing the Trusts Act 1973 (Qld) legislation that had governed Queensland trusts for more than 50 years. The new Act gives effect to long-awaited reforms recommended by the Queensland Law Reform Commission in its 2013 review and is supported by the Trusts Regulation 2026 which sets out transitional and operational detail.

For trustees, beneficiaries and the lawyers who act for them, the new regime brings codified duties, modernised powers, sharper accountability mechanisms and recalibrated court remedies. This article highlights the changes most likely to drive trust disputes and where the contours of trust litigation in Queensland are likely to shift.

 A new statutory baseline for trustee duties

 For the first time, the core duties of a Queensland trustee are set out plainly on the face of the legislation rather than left to the patchwork of common law and equity. A trustee must:

• act honestly and in good faith;
• exercise reasonable care, diligence and skill — measured against the standard of a “prudent person of business”;
• act in the best interests of beneficiaries; and
• keep accurate records and accounts, retained for at least three years after the trust terminates.

Codifying these duties does not invent new obligations, but it does change the litigation landscape. Plaintiffs will be able to anchor breach of trust claims in clear statutory language; trustees will have less scope to argue that an obligation was uncertain or unsettled. Expect early litigation to test the meaning of “best interests” and the prudent-person-of-business standard, particularly in family discretionary trusts and trading trusts where commercial judgment intersects with fiduciary obligation.

Trustee powers are broader, but with sharper duties

 The Act gives trustees, by default, the powers of an absolute owner of trust property, subject to the trust deed and to the trustee’s statutory duties. Trustees may also delegate certain functions, including investment decisions, to suitably qualified third parties.

The combination is significant for disputes. A trustee who once had to reach for narrow statutory authority can now point to broad default powers, but the calibrated duties raise the bar for how those powers must be exercised. Disputes over poor investment performance, failed delegations and conflicts of interest are likely to focus on whether the trustee exercised those broader powers prudently — and whether any delegation was monitored and reviewed appropriately.

The Act also tightens trustee eligibility, expressly excluding minors, insolvent individuals, insolvent companies, and persons disqualified by court order from acting as trustee. Disputes about whether a trustee’s appointment was valid and what consequences flow from invalid administration will become more clear-cut.

Beneficiary rights are clearer entitlements, easier enforcement

 The reforms materially expand the practical tools available to beneficiaries, especially those who suspect mismanagement.

Beneficiaries’ rights to inspect trust records and accounts are now expressly protected by statute. Trustees must maintain accurate records and make them available for inspection and copying upon request, subject to the usual qualifications around legal professional privilege and genuinely confidential material.

Two further changes will be of particular interest in disputes:

1. Beneficiaries can issue proceedings directly against a third party who has wrongfully received trust property. This removes a procedural obstacle that previously forced beneficiaries to compel a recalcitrant trustee to act, or to resort to a derivative claim.
2. Beneficiaries may apply to the court to review and reduce excessive trustee remuneration or commissions.

Together, these changes are likely to embolden beneficiaries who, until now, may have been reluctant to commence proceedings because of cost, procedural complexity or the trustee’s apparent control. We anticipate increased activity around information disputes, recovery proceedings against third-party recipients of trust property, and challenges to professional trustee fees.

The Act also raises the explicit capital threshold for the maintenance, education and advancement of beneficiaries from $2,000 to $100,000 — a long-overdue update reflecting contemporary living costs. This will reduce the volume of routine applications to court, while providing a clearer baseline against which trustee decisions can be scrutinised.

Court powers and judicial remedies

 The Supreme Court of Queensland’s supervisory jurisdiction over trusts is consolidated and modernised under the new Act. Key features for litigators include:

• the District Court now has jurisdiction in trust matters where the value of trust property is $750,000 or less;
• streamlined procedures for the removal and replacement of trustees where a trustee is unfit, unsuitable, or no longer eligible;
• updated provisions for the variation of trusts, judicial advice, and applications for directions; and
• clearer rules around the court’s ability to relieve a trustee, in whole or in part, from personal liability for honest and reasonable conduct.

For trust disputes, the practical effect is twofold. First, removal applications and judicial advice applications should be quicker and more predictable which is important where an underperforming or conflicted trustee is causing ongoing damage to trust property. Second, the codified judicial relief from liability creates a structured framework for defending breach of trust claims, but also a clearer evidentiary burden on the trustee seeking to rely on it.

Trustee liability and exoneration clauses

 The Act also engages with one of the more contested areas of trust litigation: the operation of trustee exoneration and indemnity clauses. Without disturbing the freedom of settlors to draft as they see fit, the new regime confirms statutory limits on the extent to which trustees can contract out of liability for dishonest or grossly negligent conduct.

Trustees relying on broad exclusion clauses — particularly in commercial and corporate trusts — should expect those clauses to be read more narrowly, and tested more rigorously where serious breach is alleged. Conversely, beneficiaries pursuing breach claims will find it easier to argue that exoneration provisions cannot be a complete answer to dishonest, reckless, or grossly negligent administration.

What this means for current and future disputes

 The Trusts Act 2025 (Qld) applies to trusts in existence on its commencement, including trusts created under the 1973 Act. Transitional arrangements in the Trusts Regulation 2026 govern matters that straddle the changeover.

For parties already involved in or contemplating trust disputes, the immediate practical consequences include:

• existing breach of trust claims may need to be re-pleaded or recalibrated to reflect the codified duties;
• information requests from beneficiaries should be reviewed against the new statutory framework before being refused or narrowed;
• trustees should review their delegation arrangements, indemnity provisions and remuneration structures, and document the basis on which powers are exercised; and
• settlors and advisors revising trust deeds should consider how the new default rules interact with bespoke drafting.

How Rose Litigation Lawyers can help

 The Trusts Act 2025 (Qld) is the most significant change to Queensland trust law in two generations. While many of its provisions codify what equity already required, the codification itself will reshape how trust disputes are pleaded, defended and resolved.

Rose Litigation Lawyers acts for trustees, beneficiaries and third parties in trust disputes throughout Queensland. If you have a current or contemplated trust dispute, or a trust administration question that may now need to be revisited under the new Act, please contact our team for a confidential discussion.

Contact Rose Litigation Lawyers today for tailored, strategic advice.

The content of this publication is intended to provide a summary and commentary only. It is not intended to be comprehensive, nor does it constitute legal advice and has been prepared based on applicable legislation and case authority at the date of publication. You should seek legal advice on specific circumstances before taking any action.