CA THORPE, ABL JACKSON AND MJ HAY AS TRUSTEES OF THE CHRISTINE THORPE FAMILY TRUST V MURRAY RONALD HANNAM HC WN CIV-2009-485-2168

CA THORPE, ABL JACKSON AND MJ HAY AS TRUSTEES OF THE CHRISTINE THORPE FAMILY TRUST V MURRAY RONALD HANNAM HC WN CIV-2009-485-2168

Summary judgment was refused because there is a real and material issue to be tried whether the trustee plaintiffs were bound by the notices and negotiations attributed to one trustee; unanimity or apparent authority of co-trustees must be established and cannot be resolved on summary judgment, so both summary...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
openlaw-cd6d30b8_8a17_4780_aed5_0fb7a5f72594.pdf
Parties
Plaintiffs (trustees): Christine Ann Thorpe; Allan Brian Leo Jackson; Michael John Hay as trustees of the Christine Thorpe Family Trust; Defendant: Murray Ronald Hannam
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
29 April 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil – Property Dispute (co Ownership/trust) / Summary Judgment Applications (applications Dismissed)
Outcome
Both summary judgment applications dismissed; no order as to costs; matter set down for further hearing/call.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Sale and Purchase Mechanism, Trustee Authority/unanimity, Without Prejudice Privilege, Occupation Rental, Summary Judgment
Property Law Trusts and Trustees Equity Civil Procedure Specific Performance Sale and Purchase Mechanism Trustee Authority/unanimity Without Prejudice Privilege +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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christine Ann Thorpe; Allan Brian Leo Jackson; Michael John Hay as trustees of the Christine Thorpe Family Trust

Plaintiffs (trustees)

Murray Ronald Hannam

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil – Property Dispute (co Ownership/trust) / Summary Judgment Applications (applications Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 4 of the Property Agreement was validly invoked to require sale/purchase
  2. 2 Whether a single trustee (or her solicitor) could bind the trustee plaintiffs without unanimous approval or ostensible authority
  3. 3 Whether the defendant is entitled to specific performance to buy plaintiffs' share at the valuer's figure

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment was refused because there is a real and material issue to be tried whether the trustee plaintiffs were bound by the notices and negotiations attributed to one trustee; unanimity or apparent authority of co-trustees must be established and cannot be resolved on summary judgment, so both summary applications fail.

Court Disposition

Both summary judgment applications dismissed; no order as to costs; matter set down for further hearing/call.

Orders

  • Dismiss plaintiffs' summary judgment application for sale under s339 Property Law Act 2007
  • Dismiss defendant's summary judgment counterclaim for specific performance