New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Application for directions

Legal area

Court

2 Nov 2021

MACNAMARA v MACNAMARA [2021] NZHC 2947

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2947
Court

High Court

The court exercised its discretion to award costs to the Trustees on a 2B basis for all steps associated with the application for directions and allowed recovery of the $1,500 accountant disbursement; it also awarded a separate costs order to Mrs Macnamara against Mr Macnamara on a 2B basis in the sum of $8,006.50 because there was good reason for her separate representation and involvement, and although Mr Macnamara's opposition lacked merit no uplift beyond scale costs was ordered given other costs already imposed on him.
24 Jul 2018

PUBLIC TRUST v KAIN [2018] NZHC 1547

Citation

(2018) 4 NZTR 9168
Court

High Court

Where proceedings squarely concern the proper administration and construction of trusts, costs incurred by participating beneficiaries are properly payable from the trust assets on a reasonable indemnity basis; specific awards were made allocating quantified costs to named beneficiaries and trusts, and limited indemnity costs were allowed for the settlor given his contribution.
4 Aug 2016

IN THE ESTATE OF ANTTI MATIAS NURMELA [2016] NZHC 1800

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1800
Court

High Court

The Court, exercising its direction‑giving power under s9B(2) and its procedural jurisdiction, may permit an attorney acting as administrator to continue to act for a limited specified period after the person entitled dies to enable application for a new grant or winding up; in this case the Court granted a six month continuation and reserved leave to apply for further extension.
26 May 2014

GRANT v McDERMOTT & ANOR [2014] NZHC 1120

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1120
Court

High Court

The Court found the trustee/plaintiff did not act unreasonably or with bias, the question required judicial determination and involved real complexity, and the costs and disbursements were properly and reasonably incurred in the administration and litigation; accordingly the trustee was entitled to indemnity from the estate and the costs of all parties were ordered to be met from the estate.
5 Jun 2013

RAMEKA AND ANOR V HALL CA775/2011 [2013] NZCA 203

Citation

[2013] NZCA 203
Court

Court of Appeal

Appellants breached trustee duties by failing to act prudently and to protect trust assets—failing to record dissent or seek Court directions over prolonged high‑value investments (mussel farm), failing to act promptly and seek directions regarding the unsecured $1m loan and guarantees (Mangamawhitiwhiti/TWVHL), and failing to obtain advice and conclude a partnership deed for the $4m Tauhara North purchase—such breaches justified removal under s 240 and the exercise of the Court's discretion was not reviewable.
25 Oct 2012

TRUSTEES EXECUTORS LIMITED HC AK CIV-2011-404-4739

Citation

openlaw-a384f4d3_1589_4f7b_b6b2_17965fcd59cc.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court refused to direct the trustee to amend the issuer's register because the register accurately recorded the securities actually issued by EML (Classic debentures), and a s 66 directions application cannot substitute for a substantive proceeding against the issuer to change legal title or rectify the register; amendment is only appropriate if the register is factually inaccurate or after a determination involving the issuer.
5 Sept 2012

CARMINE V RITCHIE HC AK CIV 2011-404-006375

Citation

openlaw-9828c69e_1e29_441f_aad2_b30a6b22fe93.pdf
Court

High Court

The plaintiff is not entitled to indemnity from Trust assets because he acted unreasonably and improperly: he delayed ten months, actively and adversarially challenged his removal contrary to the wishes of the adult beneficiaries, was motivated by personal animus and an agenda unrelated to protecting beneficiaries, opposed appointment of independent counsel for infants and unborn beneficiaries, and caused unnecessary additional costs; accordingly costs follow the event and defendants are awarded costs under Category 2 on a Band B basis with disbursements.
2 Dec 2008

HEENAN V GORE HC CHCH CIV 2005-425-76

Citation

openlaw-ea3917ce_3dca_4d4c_a1ed_bdeb6d991ac6.pdf
Court

High Court

The judge exercised the court's power to recall the earlier judgment in order to consider the applicant's supplementary memorandum filed pursuant to leave previously reserved and will issue a further judgment after considering those submissions.