FL TRUSTEES 2012 LIMITED v MOORE [2021] NZHC 763

FL TRUSTEES 2012 LIMITED v MOORE [2021] NZHC 763

The application to correct the earlier judgment under r 11.10 was dismissed because the earlier judgment accurately reflected the original application and did not contain a clerical error; correcting to include the third parcel would require further evidence and thus falls outside the narrow scope of the slip rule, and recall was unavailable because the judgment was sealed; plaintiffs must bring a fresh application for vesting of the third parcel.

Citation
[2021] NZHC 763
Parties
Plaintiff (trustee): FL TRUSTEES 2012 LIMITED; Plaintiff (trustee): MICHELLE GAYLENE MOORE; Plaintiff (trustee): WILLIAM JOHN MOORE; Defendant (removed Trustee): VALERIE MARGARET MOORE
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
12 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Trusts – Vesting Orders; Application Under High Court Rules (slip Rule) / Application to Correct Earlier Judgment Under R 11.10 High Court Rules (slip Rule)
Outcome
Application to correct earlier judgment under r 11.10 dismissed
Legal Topics
Vesting Orders, Slip Rule (r 11.10), Recall of Judgment (r 11.9), Removal of Trustee Due to Incapacity, Requirement for Further Evidence, Service on Beneficiaries
Trusts Civil Procedure Equity Court Practice and Procedure Vesting Orders Slip Rule (r 11.10) Recall of Judgment (r 11.9) Removal of Trustee Due to Incapacity +2 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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FL TRUSTEES 2012 LIMITED

Plaintiff (trustee)

MICHELLE GAYLENE MOORE

Plaintiff (trustee)

WILLIAM JOHN MOORE

Plaintiff (trustee)

VALERIE MARGARET MOORE

Defendant (removed Trustee)

Procedural Posture

Trusts – Vesting Orders; Application Under High Court Rules (slip Rule) / Application to Correct Earlier Judgment Under R 11.10 High Court Rules (slip Rule)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether error in original judgment existed that could be corrected under r 11.10
  2. 2 Whether omission of a third parcel was an accidental slip by a party or part of the intended application
  3. 3 Whether correcting the judgment would require further evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The application to correct the earlier judgment under r 11.10 was dismissed because the earlier judgment accurately reflected the original application and did not contain a clerical error; correcting to include the third parcel would require further evidence and thus falls outside the narrow scope of the slip rule, and recall was unavailable because the judgment was sealed; plaintiffs must bring a fresh application for vesting of the third parcel.

Court Disposition

Application to correct earlier judgment under r 11.10 dismissed

Orders

  • Application to correct judgment under rule 11.10 dismissed
  • Plaintiffs to commence a fresh application for vesting orders in relation to the third parcel of land