ANDERSON v ANDERSON [2017] NZHC 73

ANDERSON v ANDERSON [2017] NZHC 73

Leave to proceed under Part 19 was granted because the application was administrative in nature and did not require pleadings or interlocutory steps; service on the respondent was dispensed with because medical evidence established severe cognitive impairment making service purposeless; service on beneficiaries was dispensed with because it would be unduly burdensome and the application merely regularised the trusteeship to meet LINZ requirements; accordingly the Court vested the specified property in the remaining trustees to enable the sale and administration of the trust.

Citation
[2017] NZHC 73
Parties
Applicant and Trustee: Christina Joyce Anderson; Applicant and Trustee: Osbornes Professional Trustees Limited; Respondent and Former Trustee: Hector Cameron Anderson
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
3 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Vesting Order (trust Property) / Application on the Papers Under Part 19 High Court Rules
Outcome
Leave granted; service dispensed on respondent and beneficiaries; vesting order made in favour of remaining trustees.
Legal Topics
Vesting Order, Removal of Trustee, Dispensing With Service, Part 19 High Court Rules, Trustee Act 1956
Trusts Property Civil Procedure Equity Vesting Order Removal of Trustee Dispensing With Service Part 19 High Court Rules +1 more

Case Brief

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christina Joyce Anderson

Applicant and Trustee

Osbornes Professional Trustees Limited

Applicant and Trustee

Hector Cameron Anderson

Respondent and Former Trustee

Procedural Posture

Application for Vesting Order (trust Property) / Application on the Papers Under Part 19 High Court Rules

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to commence under Part 19 should be granted
  2. 2 Whether service on the incapacitated respondent should be dispensed with
  3. 3 Whether service on all beneficiaries should be dispensed with

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to proceed under Part 19 was granted because the application was administrative in nature and did not require pleadings or interlocutory steps; service on the respondent was dispensed with because medical evidence established severe cognitive impairment making service purposeless; service on beneficiaries was dispensed with because it would be unduly burdensome and the application merely regularised the trusteeship to meet LINZ requirements; accordingly the Court vested the specified property in the remaining trustees to enable the sale and administration of the trust.

Court Disposition

Leave granted; service dispensed on respondent and beneficiaries; vesting order made in favour of remaining trustees.

Orders

  • Leave to commence proceedings under Part 19 of the High Court Rules granted
  • Service of the application is dispensed with in respect of the respondent Hector Cameron Anderson