BULLEY AND OTHERS v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND OTHERS HC WN CIV-2010-463-640

BULLEY AND OTHERS v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND OTHERS HC WN CIV-2010-463-640

Subclause F records the initial agreed vesting of 25% and does not impose an absolute upper limit; Schedule II paragraph O authorises acquisition of further shares provided a consumer poll approves; the 1998 consumer poll, taken in context, constituted the required prior approval and the Trustees lawfully acquired...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
openlaw-974581aa_8cce_4617_ad31_81f585ca2015.pdf
Parties
Applicants: David Allen Bulley; Kevin Joseph Hennessy; Brian Edwin Ponting; Peter James Patterson; Donna Maree Smit; Wadeross Brown (Trustees of the Eastern Bay Energy Trust); First Respondent: Attorney-General for and on behalf of the Ministry of Energy; Second Respondents: Graham Pryor; Stephen Tipene Perenara Marr; Cathy Dewes; Kenneth Raurēti; Harinawar Brick; Martin Marr; Merepeka Raukawa-Tait (Trustees of Te Mana o Ngati Rangitihi Trust); Interested Party: Consumers (interested party)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
2 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Application for Directions and Validation Under Trustee Act Ss64 and 66 Relating to a Consumer Trust and Shareholdings in a Distribution Company / High Court Hearing and Judgment (declaratory Relief Granted 2 April 2012)
Outcome
Declarations granted in favour of the trustees; acquisition validated as lawful; original vesting lawful; costs reserved
Legal Topics
Trust Deed Interpretation, Trustee Act S64 Validation, Trustee Act S66 Directions, Consumer Trust Governance, Share Acquisition and Retention, Consumer Polls/approval, Vesting Order
Trusts Equity Company Law Statutory Interpretation Trust Deed Interpretation Trustee Act S64 Validation Trustee Act S66 Directions Consumer Trust Governance +3 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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Allen Bulley; Kevin Joseph Hennessy; Brian Edwin Ponting; Peter James Patterson; Donna Maree Smit; Wadeross Brown (Trustees of the Eastern Bay Energy Trust)

Applicants

Attorney-General for and on behalf of the Ministry of Energy

First Respondent

Graham Pryor; Stephen Tipene Perenara Marr; Cathy Dewes; Kenneth Raurēti; Harinawar Brick; Martin Marr; Merepeka Raukawa-Tait (Trustees of Te Mana o Ngati Rangitihi Trust)

Second Respondents

Consumers (interested party)

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Directions and Validation Under Trustee Act Ss64 and 66 Relating to a Consumer Trust and Shareholdings in a Distribution Company / High Court Hearing and Judgment (declaratory Relief Granted 2 April 2012)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Trust Deed limit (Subclause F) capped trust shareholding at 25% or whether Schedule II paragraph O permitted further acquisitions subject to a consumer poll
  2. 2 If Paragraph O permitted acquisitions, whether the 1998 consumer poll satisfied Paragraph O for the 1999 acquisition from United
  3. 3 If Trustees lacked deed power, whether Court can validate retention/acquisition under Trustee Act s64

Ratio Decidendi

Subclause F records the initial agreed vesting of 25% and does not impose an absolute upper limit; Schedule II paragraph O authorises acquisition of further shares provided a consumer poll approves; the 1998 consumer poll, taken in context, constituted the required prior approval and the Trustees lawfully acquired 52.29% from United; original vesting of five million shares was lawful.

Court Disposition

Declarations granted in favour of the trustees; acquisition validated as lawful; original vesting lawful; costs reserved

Orders

  • Declare that the Trust Deed empowered the Trustees to acquire more than 25% of the shares in the Company subject to compliance with Schedule II paragraph O (consumer poll)
  • Declare that the Trustees complied with paragraph O by virtue of the 1998 consumer poll and that the acquisition in December 1999 of 52.29% of the shares from United was lawful