SHIELDS v HAYWARD [2017] NZHC 261

SHIELDS v HAYWARD [2017] NZHC 261

The plaintiff failed to prove undue influence or unconscionable conduct: the presumption of undue influence was rebutted by evidence that Mrs Shields consistently intended to prefer Carla (including earlier independent instructions), was estranged from Sarah, received adequate explanation and time from a competent independent solicitor, and retained practical benefits and protective powers under the trust; consequently the negligence claims against Corban Revell also failed because the firm acted competently and had no reasonable basis to suspect impairment at the time.

Citation
[2017] NZHC 261
Parties
Plaintiff: Ruve Adele Shields; First Defendant: Carla Hayward; Second Defendant: Corban Revell
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
24 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Trusts and Equity (property Transfer to Trust) / High Court Judgment (trial)
Outcome
Claims against both defendants dismissed.
Legal Topics
Undue Influence, Unconscionable Bargain, Transfer to Trust, Testamentary Disposition, Solicitor Duty to Ensure Understanding, Family Protection Act Implications
Equity Trusts Elder Law Professional Negligence Capacity Law Property Law Undue Influence Unconscionable Bargain +4 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ruve Adele Shields

Plaintiff

Carla Hayward

First Defendant

Corban Revell

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trusts and Equity (property Transfer to Trust) / High Court Judgment (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the transfer of property to the Martha's Vineyard Trust was induced by undue influence from Carla
  2. 2 Whether Carla engaged in unconscionable conduct by exploiting Mrs Shields' cognitive disadvantage
  3. 3 Whether Corban Revell breached duties to ensure Mrs Shields was free from undue influence and fully understood the transactions

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to prove undue influence or unconscionable conduct: the presumption of undue influence was rebutted by evidence that Mrs Shields consistently intended to prefer Carla (including earlier independent instructions), was estranged from Sarah, received adequate explanation and time from a competent independent solicitor, and retained practical benefits and protective powers under the trust; consequently the negligence claims against Corban Revell also failed because the firm acted competently and had no reasonable basis to suspect impairment at the time.

Court Disposition

Claims against both defendants dismissed.

Orders

  • Claims dismissed against both defendants.
  • Defendants entitled to costs; first defendant entitled to costs only for steps while represented by counsel.