PUBLIC TRUST v TATE [2020] NZHC 166

PUBLIC TRUST v TATE [2020] NZHC 166 [14 February 2020]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDHAMILTON REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROAKIRIKIRIROA ROHECIV-2020-419-23[2020] NZHC 166UNDER Section 52 of the Trustee Act 1956BETWEEN PUBLIC TRUST as administrator of theEstate of Kenneth Tate of Hamilton(Deceased)ApplicantAND BETTY MAE TATEFirst RespondentJANICE MAE SARGENTSecond RespondentHearing: On the papersAppearances: A Habershon for the ApplicantJudgment: 14 February 2020JUDGMENT OF MUIR JThis judgment was delivered by me on Thursday 14 February 2020 at 10.30 amPursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.Registrar/Deputy RegistrarDate:Counsel/Solicitors:Public Trust, ChristchurchIntroduction[1] The Public Trust makes application for orders:(a) That proceedings be commenced by way of originating applicationunder Part 18 of the High Court Rules.(b) Dispensing with service on Betty Mae Tate (Mrs Tate), Janice MaeSargent (Ms Sargent) and the discretionary beneficiaries of the estate.(c) Substantively:(i) removing the names of Mrs Tate and Ms Sargent from the titleto the property at 99 Baverstock Road, Hamilton (record of titleSA63A/24); and(ii) vesting the title in the name of the Public Trust.Background[2] On 14 October 1997 the probate of the last will of Mr Kenneth Tate (thedeceased) was granted to Mrs Tate, who is the deceased's widow, and Ms Sargent,who is his daughter. They were the executors named in the will.[3] Mrs Tate is no longer competent to manage her own affairs having beendiagnosed with dementia.[4] On 23 January 2018 the Public Trust was appointed as her property manager.[5] On 5 August 2019 an order was made in the High Court discharging Mrs Tateand (by consent) Ms Sargent as administrators of the estate and appointing the PublicTrust in their stead.[6] The Public Trust now wishes to sell the estate property at 99 Baverstock Road(the property). This had formerly been occupied by Mrs Tate but she is now in moresuitable accommodation.[7] The sale cannot be completed without the land first being vested in the nameof the Public Trust.[8] Ms Sargent consents to the application and all of the residuary beneficiaries(comprising Ms Sargent and her siblings) consented to the Public Trust appointmentas administrator. All are also sui juris.[9] I accept the submissions of counsel that it is not possible for a transfer of theproperty to be effected without a prior vesting order in favour of the Public Trust.[10] I am satisfied that, having regard to the order of this Court discharging MrsTate and Ms Sargent as administrators, a vesting order is appropriate.[11] I am also satisfied that having regard to Ms Sargent's consent, the earlierconsent of the discretionary beneficiaries and the current medical condition ofMrs Tate, service of the interlocutory application is unnecessary.[12] I am further satisfied that the matter is appropriately commenced by way oforiginating application. Similar applications are routinely dealt with in this way bythe High Court.Result[13] I grant leave for the proceedings to be commenced by way of originatingapplication.[14] I dispense with service on Betty Mae Tate, Janice Mae Sargent and thediscretionary beneficiaries of the estate.[15] I direct that the names of Betty Mae Tate and Janice Mae Sargent be removedfrom the title of the property at 99 Baverstock Road, Hamilton (record of titleSA63A/24).[16] I vest title to the said property in the name of the Public Trust.__________________________Muir J