Family trusts are a familiar part of Australian property ownership, but the phrase “the trust owns it” can sometimes create more confidence than it should. A discretionary trust does separate legal ownership from a beneficiary’s expectations. What it doesn’t do is automatically place every asset beyond the reach of a court order.
That distinction sits at the heart of Filippini v Keystone Asset Management Limited (Receivers and Managers appointed) (in liquidation) [2026] FCAFC 71. On 22 May 2026, the Full Court of the Federal Court — Beach, Button and Younan JJ — dismissed an appeal concerning freezing orders over assets connected with three discretionary trusts.
Behind the dispute were serious allegations. Keystone alleged that Robert Filippini and City Built Pty Ltd had misappropriated approximately $158 million associated with property-development expenditure. Those allegations were not finally decided in this proceeding. The issue before the Court was narrower: whether freezing orders could remain in place to preserve assets while the underlying litigation continued.
The orders extended to assets held by the trustees of three discretionary trusts, including two real properties and four luxury vehicles. Filippini was both a beneficiary and appointor of the trusts and had been found to exercise extensive control over them.
| Issue | What Filippini tells us | Why it matters for property owners |
| Trust ownership | Trust assets can potentially be affected by third-party freezing orders | Saying an asset is “held on trust” doesn’t end the enquiry |
| Beneficiary status | A discretionary beneficiary does not personally own each trust asset | Beneficial expectancy and legal ownership are different |
| Control | Filippini’s extensive control over the trusts was significant | Trustee and appointor powers can matter |
| Freezing orders | Courts can preserve identifiable trust assets in appropriate circumstances | Property can be restrained before liability is finally determined |
| Underlying allegations | Misappropriation was alleged, not established by this appeal | A freezing order preserves assets; it is not a finding of guilt or liability |
It wasn’t simply a case of “family trust equals frozen property”
That distinction is important.
The Full Court considered rule 7.35(5)(a) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), which allows freezing orders in certain circumstances against third parties holding or controlling assets — including an expectancy — of a prospective judgment debtor.
Filippini was not treated as though he personally owned everything held by the trusts. Instead, the Court looked at his position as a discretionary beneficiary alongside the considerable control he exercised. He was an appointor, his wife was trustee of two trusts, and he was the sole shareholder of the corporate trustee of another. There were also unchallenged findings that he exercised extensive control over the trusts.
The broader circumstances made asset preservation more significant. The primary judge had evidence that members of the Filippini family had left Australia and that approximately $7.75 million had moved from Australian accounts to overseas accounts between January and July 2025. Against that background, the judge was satisfied there was a risk of assets being dissipated.
So Filippini does not stand for the proposition that every property held through a family trust is automatically available to a beneficiary’s personal creditors. Nor was it primarily a case about an insolvent corporate trustee holding family real estate.
Its real focus was the Court’s asset-preservation jurisdiction and, more particularly, what can happen when a prospective judgment debtor has an expectancy under a discretionary trust while also exercising substantial control over that structure.
For property owners, that raises some worthwhile questions: • Who is actually registered on title? • In what capacity is the property held? • Who can appoint or remove the trustee? • Who controls distributions? • Are personal and trust transactions properly separated? • Is anyone controlling the trust involved in significant litigation or insolvency? • Are there court orders, caveats or other dealings that could affect a proposed transaction?
Family trusts remain legitimate and useful ownership structures. Filippini simply shows why “it’s in the trust” should never be mistaken for an invisibility cloak.
Flash Conveyancing Advice
If you’re buying or selling property through a trust, understand the trustee’s authority and the structure before exchange. Where litigation, insolvency or freezing orders affect someone controlling the trust, seek specialist advice early. Don’t assume that property is insulated from a transaction problem simply because the registered proprietor holds it as trustee.
Flash Conveyancing, led by Julian & Renee, specialises in property transactions throughout NSW. Trust transactions deserve careful attention because the name appearing on a title rarely tells the entire story.
Where a corporate trustee is purchasing, the contract should identify the correct legal entity and its capacity. When property is being sold by a trustee, the vendor’s authority to deal with the land and the interests appearing on title also need to be considered.
There is another important point from Filippini. A freezing order should not be thought of simply as something that is automatically “registered on title” and causes NSW Land Registry Services to block every transaction. Its effect depends on the terms of the particular order and the people or entities bound by it. How it interacts with a proposed sale, registration, caveat or other dealing needs to be examined in the circumstances.
That is why a current title search matters, but it should not be mistaken for a complete litigation search. It can reveal registered interests affecting NSW land; it cannot necessarily tell you everything about litigation, insolvency or restraints involving the people and entities behind the transaction.
Julian and Renee personally oversee files as part of Flash Conveyancing’s boutique, human-led service. According to the practice’s own procedures, sensitive settlement payment directions are directly voice-verified, while confidential client information is supported by offline local-storage measures.
Flash Conveyancing assists property clients throughout Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong, together with Blacktown, Hawkesbury, the Blue Mountains, The Hills, Hornsby and Parramatta. Its service area includes Acacia Gardens, Angus, Arndell Park, Blacktown, Colebee, Glendenning, Glenwood, Grantham Farm, Kellyville Ridge, Kings Langley, Marsden Park, Melonba, Oakhurst, Parklea, Quakers Hill, Riverstone, Schofields, Seven Hills, Stanhope Gardens, Tallawong, The Ponds, Baulkham Hills, Beaumont Hills, Bella Vista, Castle Hill, Kellyville, Kenthurst, North Rocks, Northmead, Rouse Hill, Vineyard, Windsor, Annangrove, Box Hill, Cattai, Dural, Gables, Galston, Glenhaven, Glenorie, Maraylya, Middle Dural, Nelson, North Kellyville, Norwest and Winston Hills.
