MALCOLM EDWARD RABSON AS TRUSTEE OF THE MALCOLM RABSON FAMILY TRUST V LINDA GALLAGHER COA CA507/2010

MALCOLM EDWARD RABSON AS TRUSTEE OF THE MALCOLM RABSON FAMILY TRUST V LINDA GALLAGHER COA CA507/2010 20 December 2011NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 35A OF THE PROPERTY (RELATIONSHIPS)ACT 1976, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITHSS 11B TO 11D OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT 1980. FOR FURTHERINFORMATION, PLEASE SEEHTTP://WWW.JUSTICE.GOVT.NZ/COURTS/FAMILY-COURT/LEGISLATION/RESTRICTIONS-ON-PUBLICATIONS.IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCA507/2010CA726/2010[2011] NZCA 669BETWEEN MALCOLM EDWARD RABSON ASTRUSTEE OF THE MALCOLMRABSON FAMILY TRUSTAppellantAND LINDA GALLAGHERFirst RespondentAND MALCOLM EDWARD RABSONSecond RespondentAND WAYNE SEYMOUR CHAPMAN ASTRUSTEE OF THE GALLAGHER-RABSON FAMILY TRUSTThird RespondentCA524/2010AND BETWEEN LINDA GALLAGHERAppellantAND MALCOLM EDWARD RABSONFirst RespondentAND MALCOLM EDWARD RABSON ASTRUSTEES OF THE MALCOLMRABSON FAMILY TRUSTSecond RespondentAND WAYNE SEYMOUR CHAPMAN ASTRUSTEE OF THE GALLAGHER-RABSON FAMILY TRUSTThird RespondentCA725/2010AND BETWEEN MALCOLM EDWARD RABSON ASTRUSTEE OF THE MALCOLMRABSON FAMILY TRUSTAppellantAND LINDA GALLAGHERFirst RespondentAND MALCOLM EDWARD RABSONSecond RespondentAND WAYNE SEYMOUR CHAPMAN ASTRUSTEE OF THE GALLAGHER-RABSON FAMILY TRUSTThird RespondentHearing: 21 and 22 June 2011Court: O'Regan P, Glazebrook and Ellen France JJCounsel: M E Rabson in personN Levy and C A J Fewkes for Ms GallagherB Balderstone for the Trustee of the Gallagher-Rabson Family TrustJudgment: 20 December 2011 at 10:30 AMJUDGMENT OF THE COURTA We quash the orders made in [9](3) and [9](4) of the orders of the High Court made on 1 October 2010.B We make no order in substitution for order [9](3).C We make the following orders in substitution for order [9](4):(a) The trustee of the Gallagher Rabson Family Trust (GRFT trustee) is directed to do the following (and if any of these stepshas already been taken it will be treated as having been done under these orders):(i) Sell the Raumati South property and the Plimmerton property to best advantage.(ii) After setting aside sufficient money to meet the trustee'sreasonable past and future costs and expenses, to pay the proceeds of the sale of the Raumati South property and the Plimmerton property to Ms Gallagher against her entitlement to relationship property, to the extent necessary to satisfy the total owed, being:$675,750 in respect of the deeds of acknowledgement of debt signed on 10 July 2003;$163,331 in respect of the surrender of the lease for life;$130,000 in respect of the beneficiary accounts of the Malcolm Rabson Family Trust (MRFT), plus interest as prescribed below;$270,000, being $300,000 from Mr Rabson's share ofrelationship property pursuant to s 44C of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 less $30,000 payable by Ms Gallagher to Mr Rabson in relation to the Volkswagen Passat car.(iii) Offer the Paraparaumu property to Mr Rabson (or his nominated purchaser) at current market value, and uponterms, as determined in the trustee's discretion.(iv) That offer is to be open for acceptance by Mr Rabson on the basis that settlement is completed either by Mr Rabson paying the purchase price in cleared funds at settlement orby Mr Rabson's obligation to pay the purchase price beingsatisfied in the following way:A By Mr Rabson paying to the GRFT trustee in cleared funds a sum equal to the amount required to ensure that Ms Gallagher receives from the Raumati South property, the Plimmerton property and the Paraparaumu property her share of the relationship property as set out in (a)(ii) above.B To the maximum extent possible, the balance of the purchase price being credited by the trustee of the MRFT (MRFT trustee) in reduction of the amount owed by the Gallagher Rabson Family Trust (GRFT) to the MRFT, and in turn being credited by Mr Rabson in reduction of the amount owed by the MRFT to Mr Rabson as described in [18]–[19] of the Reasons of the Court.C To the extent that these steps do not fully satisfy Mr Rabson's obligation to pay the purchase price forthe Paraparaumu property, Mr Rabson must pay the GRFT trustee the balance in cleared funds.(v) The GRFT trustee should pay Ms Gallagher her remaining share of the relationship property, as set out at (a)(ii) above, if any.(vi) After deducting the GRFT trustee's remaining costs andexpenses, (including in respect of any claims by Mr Rabson for renovation costs in relation to theproperties and the costs and expenses associated with the winding up of the GRFT), to pay any funds still in theGRFT trustee's hands to the MRFT against the balance ofthe amount the GRFT still owes the MRFT, if any, and then to wind up the GRFT in accordance with the terms of the trust deed.(vii) In the event that no sale occurs in accordance with (a)(iii) on the terms specified by the trustee, the trustee shall sell the Paraparaumu property to best advantage.(viii) In the event that the Paraparaumu property is sold to a person nominated by Mr Rabson or to a purchaser under (a)(vii) above, the purchase price must be paid in full in cleared funds at settlement.(ix) In the event that the purchase price for the Paraparaumu property is paid in full in cleared funds, the GRFT trustee, the MRFT trustee and Mr Rabson shall effect such payments and make such credits as are necessary to bring about the same effective outcome as would have resulted if a sale of the Paraparaumu property to Mr Rabson under (a)(iv)A–C had been concluded.(b) The MRFT trustee is directed to:(i) Treat $270,000 of the amount paid to Ms Gallagher as payment made by the GRFT to the MRFT in reduction ofthe GRFT's debt to the MRFT and thereupon as payment of the debts owed by the MRFT to Mr Rabson.(ii) Treat the remainder of the amounts paid to Ms Gallagher under (a)(ii) and (iv) above as payments made by theGRFT to the MRFT in reduction of the GRFT's debt tothe MRFT and thereupon as payment of the debts owed by the MRFT to Ms Gallagher pursuant to the deeds of acknowledgment of debt and beneficiary accounts referred to in (a)(ii) above, and also pursuant to the interest owed to her on her unpaid share of the beneficiary accounts. Such payments to Ms Gallagher will satisfy those debts to the extent of those payments.(iii) If the purchase price for the Paraparaumu property is paid in accordance with (a)(iv)A–C above, the MRFT trustee must do what is required by those provisions and otherwise must do what is required by (a)(ix).(iv) Deal with any remaining amounts owed to Mr Rabson as agreed with Mr Rabson.(c) The interest payable on the $130,000 in relation to the beneficiary accounts of the MRFT is to be at the rate specified in s 87 of the Judicature Act 1908, namely 7.5 per cent per annum from 1 April 2006 to 30 June 2008, 8.4 per cent per annum from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2011 and thereafter at 7.5 per cent per annum.(d) Leave is reserved to the GRFT trustee to apply to the High Court for further directions if required and to any party to apply to this Court for clarification of any matter relating to these orders.D We make no award of costs in relation to these orders._______________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by O'Regan P)Introduction[1] In the judgment of 15 September 2011, the parties were asked to submit further submissions:1(a) on the amendments that would need to be made to the High Court orders to give effect to or to deal with the consequences of the orders we had made; and(b) on whether the gifts made by the parties to the Malcolm Rabson Family Trust (MRFT) need to be factored into the orders made by the Court and, if so, how.[2] We have received submissions from Ms Levy for Ms Gallagher, Mr Barker and Ms Balderstone for the Gallagher Rabson Family Trust (GRFT) and Mr Rabson for himself and the MRFT. We now make those further orders and deal with other matters that have been raised in submissions.[3] This judgment should be read alongside the 15 September judgment. The terminology used in the 15 September judgment is also used in this judgment.[4] Counsel for Mr Rabson (both in his personal capacity and as trustee of the MRFT) at the substantive hearing, Ms Hunter, notified the Court that she had been informed that Mr Rabson had taken over the conduct of this aspect of the appeal and that her role in the proceedings had come to an end. Mr Rabson made submissions himself in response to our request for further submissions. Mr Rabson has now notified the Court formally that Ms Hunter and her instructing solicitors have ceased to act.1 Rabson v Gallagher [2011] NZCA 459 at [118]–[119] ["15 September judgment"].[5] Mr Rabson has recently notified the Court that an additional trustee has been appointed to the MRFT. We have maintained the intituling used for the 15 September judgment because that reflects the position at the time of the 15 September judgment and this judgment gives effect to the 15 September judgment. But the orders made in this judgment referring to the trustee of the MRFT should be read as referring to the trustee or trustees in office at any relevant time. The same applies to the GRFT.Gifting[6] In the 15 September judgment, we were concerned that the total amounts owing to the MRFT by both parties had not reduced despite there being several references to gifting having occurred. Ms Levy pointed out that the gifting had beenadjusted for in the parties' beneficiary accounts, so that the total amount in theaccounts as at 31 March 2006 was reduced to reflect the gifts made. Mr Rabson did not take issue with this in his submissions. We are satisfied that resolves the matter. It confirms that the sums referred to as owing by the MRFT to the parties were correct.2Required changes?[7] When Wild J made his orders,3 he proceeded on the understanding that Ms Gallagher and Mr Rabson desired to retain the properties they currently live in.4We have now been informed that Ms Gallagher no longer wishes to retain the Plimmerton property.[8] In addition, the 15 September judgment made changes to Wild J's decision inthree respects:5(a) It quashed the finding that the trustee of the MRFT (the MRFT trustee) held $300,000 on an institutional constructive trust in favour2 At [69](a) and (c).3 Rabson v Gallagher HC Wellington CIV-2008-485-2279, 1 October 2010 ["October orders"].4 At [8](d) and (e).5 15 September judgment at [116].of Ms Gallagher. In its place, the Court substituted an order that Mr Rabson was liable to pay to Ms Gallagher $300,000 from the debt of $675,000 owing to him by the MRFT.6(b) It quashed orders at [9](3) and [9](4)(b)(i) of the October orders.7(c) It ordered that Mr Rabson be credited $30,000 in the implementation of the orders of the Court.8 This amount represented his interest in the Volkswagen Passat car.[9] Wild J's decision was otherwise upheld. In particular, the judgmentconfirmed that Ms Gallagher was entitled to:(a) $675,750 (being the debts owed by the MRFT to Ms Gallagher to reflect the lotto winnings);9(b) $163,331 (being the debt owed by the MRFT to Ms Gallagher for the Paremata property);10(c) $300,000 (albeit under s 44C of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976, rather than under an institutional constructive trust, and owed by Mr Rabson out of his share of the relationship property, not by the MRFT)11 and(d) $130,000 (being half of the combined value of the beneficiaries'accounts as at 31 March 2006 as joint property under s 8(1)(c)).12A total of: $1,269,081.6 In the judgment this was termed his "separate property". More accurately, it was relationshipproperty, as Ms Levy pointed out. We were referring to his share of the relationship property,the $675,750.7 At [116](b); in the sealed orders of the High Court these are numbered [3] and [4](b)(i).8 At [115].9 At [67].10 At [93].11 At [116](a).12 At [108].[10] It also confirmed that Ms Gallagher was liable to pay $30,000 to Mr Rabson for the Volkswagen Passat car. The total amount Ms Gallagher was thus entitled to receive was: $1,239,081.SubmissionsOwnership of the properties[11] Ms Levy submitted that the orders could be simplified somewhat now that Ms Gallagher no longer wanted to retain the Plimmerton property. She suggested that the trustee of the GRFT (the GRFT trustee) be directed to sell all three properties and then:(a) Pay Ms Gallagher her total share of the relationship property (including the s 44C award) with a deduction of $30,000 to be paid to Mr Rabson.(b) Pay the MRFT, in satisfaction of the debt owing by the GRFT to the MRFT under the deed of acknowledgement of debt between the GRFT and the MRFT, a sum calculated as $1,953,000 less the amount paid to Ms Gallagher. That amount would then be credited to the extent necessary as satisfaction of the debts owing under the deeds of acknowledgement of debt between the MRFT, Ms Gallagher and Mr Rabson.(c) Wind up the GRFT in accordance with the terms of the trust deed.[12] Mr Rabson in his submissions claims that the Raumati property has alreadybeen sold by the GRFT trustee and $246,034.23 disbursed to Ms Gallagher'ssolicitor. We have no evidence to suggest that is so and neither Ms Levy nor Mr Barker (for the GRFT trustee) mentions the fact in written submissions. In any case, if this has already occurred, this would be consistent with the High Courtorders and the orders that follow from this Court's judgment.Interest[13] Mr Rabson also seeks interest on the $30,000 he is owed for the Volkswagen Passat car. That was not raised as an issue at the substantive hearing and was not an issue in respect of which leave was reserved for further submissions. He also claims immediate payment of this amount. In our view it is better treated as an offset against what he owes Ms Gallagher. Accordingly, we decline to order interest on the $30,000.[14] There was no appeal against the order of interest on Ms Gallagher's share of the current accounts, $130,000, which was made in the High Court by Wild J and so that will be incorporated into our orders.Payment to Mr Rabson[15] Mr Rabson also submitted that the judgment makes no provision for disbursement of relationship money to him. This is because the outcome of the orders is that Mr Rabson can seek repayment of debt owed to him by the MRFT if he wishes to do so.[16] Mr Rabson is personally responsible for paying $300,000 to Ms Gallagher out of his share of relationship property. The obvious source for this payment is thedebt owed to him by the MRFT. We acknowledge Ms Levy's point that this debt is relationship property, not separate property. This should be partially offset by the $30,000 that Ms Gallagher owes Mr Rabson in relation to the Volkswagen Passat car. Once Ms Gallagher has been paid what is owing to her, this will have fully extinguished the MRFT debt to her. Thus:(a) The amount owing by the MRFT to Mr Rabson under the deeds of acknowledgement of debt should be treated as reduced by $270,000 and the amount owing by the MRFT to Ms Gallagher under those deeds should be treated as reduced by $30,000. The amount remaining owing under the deeds of acknowledgement of debt in Mr Rabson's name will then become his separate property.(b) The MRFT's indebtedness to Ms Gallagher should be extinguished.[17] This effect of the orders should be that the debt by the GRFT to the MRFT and by the MRFT to Ms Gallagher will be extinguished. Mr Rabson can then claim for repayment of the amount owed to him by the MRFT or leave the funds in the MRFT, as he sees fit.[18] However, if Mr Rabson exercises his right to purchase the Paraparaumu property, the GRFT trustee may accept payment (or part payment) in the manner contemplated by the High Court orders, where instead of paying in cash, Mr Rabson credits the MRFT as repaying its debt to him and the MRFT credits the GRFT as paying its debt to the MRFT. The MRFT owes Mr Rabson his share of the relationship property debts. These amount to $969, 081, comprised as follows:(a) $675,750 (being the debts owed by the MRFT to reflect the lotto winnings);(b) $163,331 (being the debt owed by the MRFT for the Paremata property);(c) $130,000 (being half of the combined value of the beneficiaries'accounts as at 31 March 2006).[19] $270,000 of this will be applied to meet Mr Rabson's obligation to Ms Gallagher for the s 44C claim (adjusted to take account of Ms Gallagher'sobligation in relation to the Volkswagen Passat car). That leaves $699,081, which the GRFT and MRFT will need to treat as paying the debt owed to the MRFT by the GRFT to the extent that this amount is still owing by the GRFT. In addition, Mr Rabson and the MRFT will need to treat the same amount as paying the debt owed to Mr Rabson by the MRFT. The balance of the purchase price will need to be paid by Mr Rabson to the GRFT trustee on settlement.[20] If Mr Rabson does not purchase the Paraparaumu property (either because he nominates another purchaser or because he does not wish to buy it at all) or if hedecides it would be preferable to pay for the property in cash rather than as described above, the GRFT trustee will need to repay to the MRFT the amount owed by the GRFT to the MRFT.Order to replace [9](3) and [9](4)(b)(i)[21] Mr Rabson also submits that an order should be made that the MRFT or any other entity that paid for renovations to the properties should be able to claim as against the GRFT for the costs of those renovations. In the 15 September judgment we said:13But, in principle, we agree that the orders of the Court should not preclude a claim by the MRFT against the GRFT for reimbursement of the cost of alterations on the Paraparaumu property that happened after the property was transferred to the GRFT to the extent that such costs were paid for by the MRFT and to the extent that they increased the value of the Paraparaumu property (and, therefore, the price to be paid for that property by the MRFT), but only if proper proof of such costs being incurred and paid by the MRFT is produced.[22] As is recorded in the 15 September judgment, Ms Hunter, counsel for Mr Rabson at the hearing, submitted that the Judge had no jurisdiction to order that the claims be resolved by the GRFT trustee. Instead, she said they were matters of dispute that should be resolved through an agreed dispute resolution mechanism or litigation. Both parties submitted therefore that the orders should be quashed, and this occurred.14 The judgment then reserved leave for either party to apply for any consequential order.[23] Ms Levy submitted that Mr Rabson was not precluded from initiating separate proceedings to resolve this issue, but that they could not be resolved in the current proceedings. Mr Barker submitted that the trustee would abide by the decision of the Court, but requested clarification of what order would replace Wild J's [9](4)(b)(i). Mr Rabson, now representing himself, applied for the orders ofWild J to be reinstated subject to a clarification that the orders should not be limited to improvements paid for by the MRFT.13 At [82].14 15 September judgment at [111].[24] Our concern is that Mr Rabson should not be left out of pocket for capital accretion to the properties attributable to renovations paid for out of his separate property. The proper place for Mr Rabson to provide evidence to substantiate his claims was in the High Court. He did not do so. Neither was there any evidence in this Court. Thus we are not in a position to make a determination of the extent to which Mr Rabson should be reimbursed. We are reluctant to let these proceedings drag on any further. Mr Rabson's clear position at the hearing in this Court was thathe was not willing to submit to the trustee to make a determination on which, if any, renovations he was entitled to recover on. He now seeks to revisit the issue and take a position at odds with his position at the hearing. We cannot allow that. Our judgment was that the orders were to be quashed, the issue is what should now replace them.[25] The orders we make should be carried out without regard to the renovations carried out by Mr Rabson. However, they do not affect the GRFT's liability toMr Rabson, or to the MRFT or his various companies, for expenditure after the transfer of the relevant property to the GRFT where there is documentary evidence of such expenditure, to the extent that this expenditure can be shown to have increased the value of the properties. This may result in delay for the trustee in implementing the final order we make below to wind up the GRFT. However, we stress that all other orders should be carried out to the fullest extent possible,notwithstanding Mr Rabson's claim, to avoid delays in Ms Gallagher receiving thebenefits of the judgment in her favour. Mr Rabson will need to make a clearly documented claim to the GRFT trustee for the amounts claimed, with evidence of the expenditure incurred. It is not necessary for this Court to make formal orders forthat to occur. Accordingly, no orders will be made to replace Wild J's [9](3) and[9](4)(b)(i).[26] The draft orders submitted by Ms Levy suggested that the pre-emptive right provided for Mr Rabson in relation to the Paraparaumu property should be replaced by an order for sale (on the basis that Mr Rabson could purchase it as part of that process). As already indicated, there was nothing in our judgment that required that change and we do not consider that there is any reason to change the protection ofMr Rabson's position inherent in Wild J's orders.Other issues raised[27] Mr Rabson requested that the Court not make any orders pending an attempt by him to seek a joint resolution with the other parties. Ms Levy confirmed that she had had no contact from Mr Rabson and there had been no attempt to try and reach a joint agreement on orders. We see no reason to delay matters further.[28] Mr Rabson also suggested that Mr Chapman was not properly appointed.Wild J's orders made clear a process by which he was to be appointed. That processwas followed. Justice Joseph Williams in the High Court subsequently confirmed that he had been validly appointed. There is nothing more to say about that.[29] Mr Rabson submitted that the sole beneficiary of the MRFT has not been represented in the proceedings and has not been afforded due process rights and thus it was inappropriate for this Court to make orders. The orders made do not affect thebeneficiary's rights,15 they simply dealt with existing liabilities of the MRFT. Ms Hunter represented the MRFT at the hearing and made submissions on behalf of its trustee, Mr Rabson. It was not necessary that the beneficiary be separately represented. The outcome of the judgment in this Court was that Ms Hunter'ssubmissions on behalf of Mr Rabson as trustee of the MRFT persuaded the Court to discharge the High Court order made against the MRFT in relation to the institutional constructive trust. Instead, a s 44C award was made against Mr Rabson personally. The MRFT was therefore better off as a result of the appeal.[30] Mr Rabson also submitted that proceeds of the sale of the Paremata property (which is represented by the $163,331 figure for Ms Gallagher's share) werewrongly applied to Ms Gallagher. He said Ms Gallagher accepted in her evidence that the money was then applied to other relationship property at that time. He does not point to this evidence and did not raise this point on appeal. Neither does he explain where we erred in our decision in finding that the lease for life was in fact relationship property.16 In any case, this is not within the scope of the leave reserved in the 15 September judgment.15 15 September judgment at [73].16 See 15 September judgment at [86]–[96].New orders[31] We now turn to the formal orders of the Court. Orders [9](1) and [9](2) of the October orders (resolving the position of the GRFT trustee) have now been implemented and order [9](3) has been quashed. We therefore confine our attention to the amendments that are required to order [9](4) to reflect the outcome of the appeal. The form of order [9](4) was not in issue in the appeal. For clarity, we do not amend order [9](4), but rather replace it entirely, though much of the original order is maintained.[32] The following orders replace those contained in [9](4) of the October orders:(a) The GRFT trustee is directed to do the following (and if any of these steps has already been taken it will be treated as having been done under these orders):(i) Sell the Raumati South property and the Plimmerton property to best advantage.(ii) After setting aside sufficient money to meet the trustee'sreasonable past and future costs and expenses, to pay the proceeds of the sale of the Raumati South property and the Plimmerton property to Ms Gallagher against her entitlement to relationship property, to the extent necessary to satisfy the total owed, being:$675,750 in respect of the deeds of acknowledgement of debt signed on 10 July 2003;$163,331 in respect of the surrender of the lease for life;$130,000 in respect of the beneficiary accounts of the MRFT, plus interest as prescribed below;$270,000, being $300,000 from Mr Rabson's share ofrelationship property pursuant to s 44C of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 less $30,000 payable by Ms Gallagher to Mr Rabson in relation to the Volkswagen Passat car.(iii) Offer the Paraparaumu property to Mr Rabson (or his nominated purchaser) at current market value, and upon terms,as determined in the trustee's discretion.(iv) That offer is to be open for acceptance by Mr Rabson on the basis that settlement is completed either by Mr Rabson paying the purchase price in cleared funds at settlement or by Mr Rabson's obligation to pay the purchase price beingsatisfied in the following way:A By Mr Rabson paying to the GRFT trustee in cleared funds a sum equal to the amount required to ensure that Ms Gallagher receives from the Raumati South property, the Plimmerton property and the Paraparaumu property her share of the relationship property as set out in (a)(ii) above.B To the maximum extent possible, the balance of the purchase price being credited by the MRFT trustee in reduction of the amount owed by the GRFT to the MRFT, and in turn being credited by Mr Rabson in reduction of the amount owed by the MRFT to Mr Rabson.17C To the extent that these steps do not fully satisfy Mr Rabson's obligation to pay the purchase price for theParaparaumu property, Mr Rabson must pay the GRFT trustee the balance in cleared funds.17 In the way described at [18]–[19] above.(v) The GRFT trustee should pay Ms Gallagher her remaining share of the relationship property, as set out at (a)(ii) above, if any.(vi) After deducting the GRFT trustee's remaining costs andexpenses, (including in respect of any claims by Mr Rabson for renovation costs in relation to the properties and the costs and expenses associated with the winding up of the GRFT), topay any funds still in the GRFT trustee's hands to the MRFTagainst the balance of the amount the GRFT still owes the MRFT, if any, and then to wind up the GRFT in accordance with the terms of the trust deed.(vii) In the event that no sale occurs in accordance with (a)(iii) on the terms specified by the trustee, the trustee shall sell the Paraparaumu property to best advantage.(viii) In the event that the Paraparaumu property is sold to a person nominated by Mr Rabson or to a purchaser under (a)(vii) above, the purchase price must be paid in full in cleared funds at settlement.(ix) In the event that the purchase price for the Paraparaumu property is paid in full in cleared funds, the GRFT trustee, the MRFT trustee and Mr Rabson shall effect such payments and make such credits as are necessary to bring about the same effective outcome as would have resulted if a sale of the Paraparaumu property to Mr Rabson under (a)(iv)A–C had been concluded.(b) The MRFT trustee is directed to:(i) Treat $270,000 of the amount paid to Ms Gallagher as payment made by the GRFT to the MRFT in reduction of theGRFT's debt to the MRFT and thereupon as payment of thedebts owed by the MRFT to Mr Rabson.(ii) Treat the remainder of the amounts paid to Ms Gallagher under (a)(ii) and (iv) above as payments made by the GRFT tothe MRFT in reduction of the GRFT's debt to the MRFT andthereupon as payment of the debts owed by the MRFT to Ms Gallagher pursuant to the deeds of acknowledgment of debt and beneficiary accounts referred to in (a)(ii) above, and also pursuant to the interest owed to her on her unpaid share of the beneficiary accounts. Such payments to Ms Gallagher will satisfy those debts to the extent of those payments.(iii) If the purchase price for the Paraparaumu property is paid in accordance with (a)(iv)A–C above, the MRFT trustee must do what is required by those provisions and otherwise must do what is required by (a)(ix).(iv) Deal with any remaining amounts owed to Mr Rabson as agreed with Mr Rabson.(c) The interest payable on the $130,000 in relation to the beneficiary accounts of the MRFT is to be at the rate specified in s 87 of the Judicature Act 1908, namely 7.5 per cent per annum from 1 April 2006 to 30 June 2008, 8.4 per cent per annum from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2011 and thereafter at 7.5 per cent per annum.(d) Leave is reserved to the GRFT trustee to apply to the High Court for further directions if required and to any party to apply to this Court for clarification of any matter relating to these orders.[33] We make no award of costs in relation to the present judgment. The costs awards in the 15 September judgment are unaffected by the present judgment.Solicitors:M Jeffcoat, Wellington for Ms GallagherBuddle Findlay, Wellington for the Trustee of the Gallagher-Rabson Family Trust