CURRIE v WILLIS [2019] NZHC 1044

CURRIE v WILLIS [2019] NZHC 1044

On the medical evidence the second respondent was incapacitated and unable to discharge trustee duties; the Court therefore exercised its inherent jurisdiction to remove her as trustee and, pursuant to s 52(1)(b)(i) Trustee Act 1956, made vesting orders in favour of the continuing trustees; service and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] NZHC 1044
Parties
Applicant / Trustee: Hilton Noel Currie; First Respondent / Co‑trustee: Robert John Willis; Second Respondent / Trustee: Janice Beryle Currie
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
14 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Trustee Act / Trust Administration Dispute / Originating Application Determined on the Papers (judgment)
Outcome
Application granted in part: leave to commence granted; service and representation dispensed with; second respondent removed as trustee; vesting orders made in favour of continuing trustees.
Legal Topics
Removal of Trustee, Vesting Order, Capacity / Incapacity, Service Dispensation
Trusts Equity Civil Procedure Removal of Trustee Vesting Order Capacity / Incapacity Service Dispensation

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hilton Noel Currie

Applicant / Trustee

Robert John Willis

First Respondent / Co‑trustee

Janice Beryle Currie

Second Respondent / Trustee

Procedural Posture

Trustee Act / Trust Administration Dispute / Originating Application Determined on the Papers (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an incapacitated trustee may be removed
  2. 2 Whether a vesting order under s 52(1)(b)(i) of the Trustee Act 1956 is appropriate where a trustee is under a disability
  3. 3 Whether service and representation can be dispensed with given incapacity and consent of remaining trustees/beneficiaries

Ratio Decidendi

On the medical evidence the second respondent was incapacitated and unable to discharge trustee duties; the Court therefore exercised its inherent jurisdiction to remove her as trustee and, pursuant to s 52(1)(b)(i) Trustee Act 1956, made vesting orders in favour of the continuing trustees; service and representation were properly dispensed with given incapacity and consent of remaining trustees and beneficiaries.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part: leave to commence granted; service and representation dispensed with; second respondent removed as trustee; vesting orders made in favour of continuing trustees.

Orders

  • Leave to commence proceedings by way of originating application granted
  • Service of the application dispensed with on the first and second respondents and the applicant's children