PARKER, BURGESS and BARTELS as trustees of the Parker Family Trust v PARKER [2014] NZHC 2248

PARKER, BURGESS and BARTELS as trustees of the Parker Family Trust v PARKER [2014] NZHC 2248

The vesting order was granted because the retiring trustee had been validly retired and replaced under s 43, the incapacitated former trustee could not participate, and a vesting order under s 52(1)(h) was necessary to ensure the current trustees were the registered proprietors and to enable the proposed sale;...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] NZHC 2248
Parties
Plaintiff (trustee): Mary Lynette Parker; Plaintiff (trustee): Kevin John Burgess; Plaintiff (trustee): Brian Andrew Bartels; Defendant: Leonard William Parker
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
17 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Vesting Order Under the Trustee Act 1956 / Judgment on Application (on the Papers)
Outcome
Application granted: vesting order made and ancillary orders as to service and representation made in accordance with drafts annexed to plaintiffs' memorandum; costs to be paid from trust funds.
Legal Topics
Vesting Order, Trustee Retirement and Appointment, Service Dispensed, Representation Dispensed, Enduring Power of Attorney, Mental Capacity
Trusts Property Law Elder Law Civil Procedure Vesting Order Trustee Retirement and Appointment Service Dispensed Representation Dispensed +2 more

Source-derived case record

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mary Lynette Parker

Plaintiff (trustee)

Kevin John Burgess

Plaintiff (trustee)

Brian Andrew Bartels

Plaintiff (trustee)

Leonard William Parker

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Vesting Order Under the Trustee Act 1956 / Judgment on Application (on the Papers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a vesting order under s 52(1)(h) of the Trustee Act 1956 should be made to vest property in the current trustees
  2. 2 Whether service on the incapacitated former trustee should be dispensed with
  3. 3 Whether any order as to representation is required

Ratio Decidendi

The vesting order was granted because the retiring trustee had been validly retired and replaced under s 43, the incapacitated former trustee could not participate, and a vesting order under s 52(1)(h) was necessary to ensure the current trustees were the registered proprietors and to enable the proposed sale; service and representation orders were unnecessary on the material before the court.

Court Disposition

Application granted: vesting order made and ancillary orders as to service and representation made in accordance with drafts annexed to plaintiffs' memorandum; costs to be paid from trust funds.

Orders

  • Vesting order granted in accordance with the draft order annexed as Schedule F to counsel's memorandum
  • Orders as to representation and service made in accordance with the draft Order for Representation and Service annexed as Schedule E to counsel's memorandum