HENNESSEY HC ROT CIV 2005-463-400
The trustees' application for a declaratory judgment was refused because clause 13 cannot lawfully be used to resettle assets in order to acquire a sweeping power to vary the Trust's operative terms where clause 11(a) evidences settlor intent to keep those core terms immutable; allowing the proposed resettlement would improperly enlarge trustees' powers and attack the trust's substratum and s64 does not authorise the general future power sought.
- Citation
- openlaw-6523dd03_72ff_4b1d_a632_baa6ee4b165d.pdf
- Parties
- Plaintiff (trustee): Kevin Joseph Hennessey; Plaintiff (trustee): Leslie Nerida Immink; Plaintiff (trustee): Malcolm Edward Law; Plaintiff (trustee): Toni Catherine Owen; Plaintiff (trustee): Brian Edwin Ponting; Plaintiff (trustee): Robin Wray; Settlor / Respondent: Horizon Energy Distribution Limited; Opposing Party: Eastern Bay of Plenty Power Society Incorporated; Opposing Party: Opposing consumers (group)
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 13 July 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Declaratory Relief Under the Declaratory Judgments Act 1908 Concerning Trust Powers / Hearing Concluded; Judgment Delivered on Application for Declaration (13 July 2006)
- Outcome
- Declaration declined; trustees' application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Winding Up Trust, Resettlement Vs Variation of Trust, Trustee Powers and Limits, Interpretation of Trust Deed, Trustee Act S64, Settlor Rights, Beneficiaries' Interests
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Kevin Joseph Hennessey
Plaintiff (trustee)
Leslie Nerida Immink
Plaintiff (trustee)
Malcolm Edward Law
Plaintiff (trustee)
Toni Catherine Owen
Plaintiff (trustee)
Brian Edwin Ponting
Plaintiff (trustee)
Robin Wray
Plaintiff (trustee)
Horizon Energy Distribution Limited
Settlor / Respondent
Eastern Bay of Plenty Power Society Incorporated
Opposing Party
Opposing consumers (group)
Opposing Party
Procedural Posture
Declaratory Relief Under the Declaratory Judgments Act 1908 Concerning Trust Powers / Hearing Concluded; Judgment Delivered on Application for Declaration (13 July 2006)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether clause 13 of the trust deed authorises trustees to resettle trust assets into a successor trust rather than merely distribute them on winding up
- 2 Whether winding up under clause 13 can be used to obtain an expanded power to vary core terms of the trust contrary to clause 11(a)
- 3 Whether the trustees may lawfully remove the settlor's veto and assume a general power to vary by resettlement
Ratio Decidendi
The trustees' application for a declaratory judgment was refused because clause 13 cannot lawfully be used to resettle assets in order to acquire a sweeping power to vary the Trust's operative terms where clause 11(a) evidences settlor intent to keep those core terms immutable; allowing the proposed resettlement would improperly enlarge trustees' powers and attack the trust's substratum and s64 does not authorise the general future power sought.
Court Disposition
Declaration declined; trustees' application dismissed
Orders
- Declaration sought by trustees refusing to be granted
- Costs reserved; any application for costs to be filed within ten working days of issue of decision
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment