KASPER TRUSTS v VAN DE ELZEN AND ANOR [2021] NZHC 2823

KASPER TRUSTS v VAN DE ELZEN AND ANOR [2021] NZHC 2823

Beddoe orders were granted because the consolidated Family Court proceedings were not 'hostile' against the trustees, the trustees have reasonably arguable defences (including reliance on the Property Agreement and compliance with the deceased's wishes), and authorising trustees to defend and be indemnified from...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] NZHC 2823
Parties
Applicants Trustees and Executors of the Estate and Trustees of the Richmond Road Trust and RJ Kasper Trust: HUGH GREGORY KASPER; MURRAY PIERCE WILLIAMS WARD; HKJ KASPER TRUSTEE LTD; First Respondent: BELINDA VAN DE ELZEN; Second Respondent: WENDY JOAN CURTIS
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
22 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Beddoe Orders (trustees Seeking Directions to Defend Family Court Proceedings) / Interlocutory/preliminary Application Consolidated With Family Court Proceedings
Outcome
Beddoe orders granted in terms of the Applicants' Notice of Originating Application dated 1 June 2021
Legal Topics
Beddoe Orders, Trustee Duties and Indemnity, Conflict of Interest, Family Protection Act Claims, Property (relationships) Act Claims, Maintenance (family Proceedings Act)
Trusts Family Law Property (relationships) Estates/probate Beddoe Orders Trustee Duties and Indemnity Conflict of Interest Family Protection Act Claims +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HUGH GREGORY KASPER; MURRAY PIERCE WILLIAMS WARD; HKJ KASPER TRUSTEE LTD

Applicants Trustees and Executors of the Estate and Trustees of the Richmond Road Trust and RJ Kasper Trust

BELINDA VAN DE ELZEN

First Respondent

WENDY JOAN CURTIS

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Beddoe Orders (trustees Seeking Directions to Defend Family Court Proceedings) / Interlocutory/preliminary Application Consolidated With Family Court Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether trustees should be authorised to use trust funds to defend consolidated Family Court proceedings (Beddoe orders)
  2. 2 Whether proceedings are 'hostile' or self-interested such that Beddoe orders should be denied
  3. 3 Whether trustees have reasonable defences including the effect of the 1999 Property Agreement and compliance with deceased's letters of wishes

Ratio Decidendi

Beddoe orders were granted because the consolidated Family Court proceedings were not 'hostile' against the trustees, the trustees have reasonably arguable defences (including reliance on the Property Agreement and compliance with the deceased's wishes), and authorising trustees to defend and be indemnified from trust assets was in the best interests of the trusts' beneficiaries, subject to reasonableness and cooperation on costs allocation.

Court Disposition

Beddoe orders granted in terms of the Applicants' Notice of Originating Application dated 1 June 2021

Orders

  • Trustees authorised to defend the consolidated Family Court proceedings (FPA55, FPA80 and PRA proceedings)
  • Trustees authorised to pay reasonable and properly incurred costs of defending those proceedings from the resources of the trusts they represent