GARDINER v DYER [2018] NZHC 355

GARDINER v DYER [2018] NZHC 355

On the facts the disposals/nominations of CIP shares did not establish the requisite intention to defeat under s 44 for the 2001 transaction (nomination right lacked proven separate value and trustees provided market consideration); trustees acted in good faith in relation to later acquisitions; s 44C compensation...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] NZHC 355
Parties
First Appellant: Julia Frances Gardiner; Second Appellants: Julia Frances Gardiner and Peter John Clark (as trustees of the Karaka Trust); Respondent: Wayne Dyer
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
8 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Property (relationships) Act Appeal / High Court Rehearing on Appeal From Family Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part: Family Court findings that justified transfer/compensation from the trust in respect of the CIP share nominations and the s 182 remedy are overturned; award of entire current account to respondent under s 11B set aside; unresolved factual matters remitted to Family Court; costs to be agreed...
Legal Topics
Dispositions to Trust, Section 44 Property (relationships) Act 1976, Section 44 C Property (relationships) Act 1976, Section 182 Family Proceedings Act 1980, Section 11 B Property (relationships) Act 1976, Relationship Property Division, Post Nuptial/ante Nuptial Settlement, Gifts to Trust, Trustee Good Faith, Tax Liabilities and Guarantees
Family Law Property Law Trusts and Equity Tax Law Civil Procedure Dispositions to Trust Section 44 Property (relationships) Act 1976 Section 44 C Property (relationships) Act 1976 +7 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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julia Frances Gardiner

First Appellant

Julia Frances Gardiner and Peter John Clark (as trustees of the Karaka Trust)

Second Appellants

Wayne Dyer

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Property (relationships) Act Appeal / High Court Rehearing on Appeal From Family Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether dispositions to the Karaka Trust (including CIP share nominations) could be set aside under s 44 PRA
  2. 2 Whether compensation under s 44C PRA should be ordered for gifts/dispositions to the trust
  3. 3 Whether s 182 FPA empowers relief (resettlement) for defeated expectations arising from the trust

Ratio Decidendi

On the facts the disposals/nominations of CIP shares did not establish the requisite intention to defeat under s 44 for the 2001 transaction (nomination right lacked proven separate value and trustees provided market consideration); trustees acted in good faith in relation to later acquisitions; s 44C compensation was not justified given the benefits the respondent received from the trust (including avoidance of bankruptcy and occupation of trust property); s 182 relief was not available because the trust was not a nuptial settlement for the marriage in the relevant sense and the mortgage/occupancy payments did not constitute a post‑nuptial settlement giving rise to defeated expectations;...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part: Family Court findings that justified transfer/compensation from the trust in respect of the CIP share nominations and the s 182 remedy are overturned; award of entire current account to respondent under s 11B set aside; unresolved factual matters remitted to Family Court; costs to be agreed...

Orders

  • Set aside Family Court orders to the extent they required transfer or compensation from the trust for the 2001 and 2009 CIP share nominations and related separation‑date valuation relief
  • Uphold that trustees provided adequate consideration and acted in good faith in respect of the CIP acquisitions; no s 44(2)(b) remedy in respect of those acquisitions