WILLIS v WILLIS [2020] NZHC 1995

WILLIS v WILLIS [2020] NZHC 1995

On the evidence (medical report and affidavit) the court was satisfied the registered trustee lacked capacity; the appointor had validly appointed replacement trustees; s52(1)(b) empowers the court to vest the trust land in the new trustees; accordingly the vesting and ancillary procedural orders were appropriate and granted.

Citation
[2020] NZHC 1995
Parties
Applicant: Thomas Blyth Willis; Applicant: Bruce Thomas Crumpton; Applicant: Lyndal Patricia Willis; Applicant: Sheryn Naomi Harpham; Respondent: Jennifer Anne Willis
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
7 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Trusts Vesting Order Under Trustee Act 1956 / Application (on the Papers)
Outcome
Applications granted in the terms sought
Legal Topics
Vesting Order, Trustee Appointment, Registration of Title, Service and Litigation Guardian Requirements
Trusts Property Law Capacity (mental Incapacity) Equity Vesting Order Trustee Appointment Registration of Title Service and Litigation Guardian Requirements

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Blyth Willis

Applicant

Bruce Thomas Crumpton

Applicant

Lyndal Patricia Willis

Applicant

Sheryn Naomi Harpham

Applicant

Jennifer Anne Willis

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a vesting order under s52(1)(b) Trustee Act 1956 is appropriate to remove an incapacitated trustee from registered title
  2. 2 Whether the application could be heard without notice, without service and without a litigation guardian
  3. 3 Whether the appointor validly appointed replacement trustees and whether that resolves trust administration but not title registration

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence (medical report and affidavit) the court was satisfied the registered trustee lacked capacity; the appointor had validly appointed replacement trustees; s52(1)(b) empowers the court to vest the trust land in the new trustees; accordingly the vesting and ancillary procedural orders were appropriate and granted.

Court Disposition

Applications granted in the terms sought

Orders

  • Proceedings commenced by originating application
  • Application to be made without notice to any other party