PHILLIPS v CRAWFORD [2017] NZHC 1478

PHILLIPS v CRAWFORD [2017] NZHC 1478

On a defendants' summary judgment application the court found genuine issues of material fact and law: the life interest in clause 3 had not been shown to have determined because clause 3 permits off-site management and grants rights to permit others to farm (and there was no equitable waste); but clauses 4 and 5 are to be construed as trust powers (mandatory directions to trustees to dispose) that fail for uncertainty of objects and therefore cannot be upheld without trial; accordingly summary judgment was dismissed and only the challenge to clauses 4 and 5 may proceed.

Citation
[2017] NZAR 1233
Parties
Plaintiff: Doris Phillips; First Defendant (executor; Life Tenant): John Ernest Crawford; Second Defendant (executor): Philip Sampson Wells
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
30 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Declaratory Judgment (estate Administration) / Summary Judgment Application Heard and Dismissed; Remaining Challenge to Validity of Clauses 4 and 5 to Proceed to Further Hearing
Outcome
Application for summary judgment dismissed in part; life interest of J E Crawford held to not have been shown to have determined; plaintiff may proceed only with challenge to invalidity of clauses 4 and 5
Legal Topics
Determinable Life Interest, Certainty of Objects, Power of Appointment Vs Trust Power, Waste (equitable and Permissive), Lease Vs Agistment/bailment, Summary Judgment Test
Wills and Estates Trusts and Powers Property Law Equity Civil Procedure Determinable Life Interest Certainty of Objects Power of Appointment Vs Trust Power +3 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 6 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Doris Phillips

Plaintiff

John Ernest Crawford

First Defendant (executor; Life Tenant)

Philip Sampson Wells

Second Defendant (executor)

Procedural Posture

Declaratory Judgment (estate Administration) / Summary Judgment Application Heard and Dismissed; Remaining Challenge to Validity of Clauses 4 and 5 to Proceed to Further Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 3 created a determinable life interest that has terminated by election or conduct of the life tenant
  2. 2 Whether the grazing arrangement constituted a lease (exclusive possession) or an agistment/bailment and whether that affects the life tenancy
  3. 3 Whether clauses 4 and 5 of the will are void for uncertainty for failing to specify beneficiaries or purposes and thus result in intestacy

Ratio Decidendi

On a defendants' summary judgment application the court found genuine issues of material fact and law: the life interest in clause 3 had not been shown to have determined because clause 3 permits off-site management and grants rights to permit others to farm (and there was no equitable waste); but clauses 4 and 5 are to be construed as trust powers (mandatory directions to trustees to dispose) that fail for uncertainty of objects and therefore cannot be upheld without trial; accordingly summary judgment was dismissed and only the challenge to clauses 4 and 5 may proceed.

Court Disposition

Application for summary judgment dismissed in part; life interest of J E Crawford held to not have been shown to have determined; plaintiff may proceed only with challenge to invalidity of clauses 4 and 5

Orders

  • Application for summary judgment dismissed
  • Plaintiff may continue only the claim challenging clauses 4 and 5 of the will