WILLIAM ELLIOT HAMILTON v JANE MAREE MURRELL [2014] NZSC 162

WILLIAM ELLIOT HAMILTON v JANE MAREE MURRELL [2014] NZSC 162

The Supreme Court refused leave because the matter did not raise any issue of general or public importance, turned on its particular facts, had no commercial significance and there was no risk of substantial miscarriage of justice; therefore it was not in the interests of justice to hear the appeal.

Citation
[2014] NZSC 162
Parties
First Applicant: William Elliot Hamilton; Second Applicant: Geoffrey Mirkin; Third Applicant: W E H Trustee Ltd; Respondent: Jane Maree Murrell
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
12 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court / Leave Application (dismissed)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Constructive Trust, Unconscionability, Trustee Authority, Sham/alter Ego Trust, Unanimity and Non Delegation
Trusts Equity Property Law Constructive Trust Unconscionability Trustee Authority Sham/alter Ego Trust Unanimity and Non Delegation

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

Parties

William Elliot Hamilton

First Applicant

Geoffrey Mirkin

Second Applicant

W E H Trustee Ltd

Third Applicant

Jane Maree Murrell

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court / Leave Application (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a constructive trust can be imposed on trust property in the particular factual matrix
  2. 2 Whether the acts and authority of a single trustee can bind the trust where other trustees did not personally create the claimant's expectation
  3. 3 Whether the Court of Appeal improperly treated factual control as legal authority or treated the trust as a sham

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court refused leave because the matter did not raise any issue of general or public importance, turned on its particular facts, had no commercial significance and there was no risk of substantial miscarriage of justice; therefore it was not in the interests of justice to hear the appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Applicants jointly and severally liable to pay respondent costs of $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements