IMMS V GUNSON AND IMMS (AS TRUSTEES OF THE ESTATE OF V I BANICEVICH) AND ORS SC 9/2006

IMMS V GUNSON AND IMMS (AS TRUSTEES OF THE ESTATE OF V I BANICEVICH) AND ORS SC 9/2006

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed variation was beyond mere management or administration, potentially adverse to other beneficiaries, the case did not raise issues of general or public importance nor a substantial miscarriage of justice, and jurisdictional limits under s 64 prevented rewriting the will where the trust property comprised company shares subject to trustees' obligations to sell.

Citation
SC 9/2006
Parties
Applicant: Jocelyn Mary Imms; First Respondent: Craig Wesley Gunson; First Respondent: Jocelyn Mary Imms (as trustee of the estate of Vjerkoslav Ivan Banicevich); Second Respondent: Cameron Banicevich; Second Respondent: Dene Banicevich; Third Respondent: Yvette Banicevich; Third Respondent: Donna Doe
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
4 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court / Leave Application Heard and Dismissed by Supreme Court
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Variation of Trusts, Section 64 Trustee Act 1956, Family Protection Act Claim, Leave to Appeal Criteria, Jurisdictional Limits on Court Intervention
Trusts Succession Estate Law Family Protection Civil Procedure Variation of Trusts Section 64 Trustee Act 1956 Family Protection Act Claim +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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jocelyn Mary Imms

Applicant

Craig Wesley Gunson

First Respondent

Jocelyn Mary Imms (as trustee of the estate of Vjerkoslav Ivan Banicevich)

First Respondent

Cameron Banicevich

Second Respondent

Dene Banicevich

Second Respondent

Yvette Banicevich

Third Respondent

Donna Doe

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court / Leave Application Heard and Dismissed by Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s 64 Trustee Act 1956 permits the court to vary the will trusts to subdivide farm land held via company shares
  2. 2 Whether the proposed variation is within management or administration or in the best interests of beneficiaries
  3. 3 Whether the leave application raised matters of general or public importance or a substantial miscarriage of justice

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed variation was beyond mere management or administration, potentially adverse to other beneficiaries, the case did not raise issues of general or public importance nor a substantial miscarriage of justice, and jurisdictional limits under s 64 prevented rewriting the will where the trust property comprised company shares subject to trustees' obligations to sell.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal dismissed
  • Costs to the second respondents, payable by the applicant, of $2,500