13 Jul 2022
The defendant's subsequent consent to a permanent trustee appointment did not constitute a new fact bearing on the costs of the earlier interlocutory hearing; the recall application improperly sought to relitigate the interlocutory costs decision and therefore recall was refused, with any impact on substantive costs to be assessed in the substantive proceeding.
4 May 2022
Costs on the interlocutory application were ordered to lie where they fall because the defendant's opposition was not frivolous or unreasonable, the parties had substantially agreed matters making the hearing avoidable, the applicant introduced additional contested conditions and refused to engage which contributed to the hearing and extra expense, the claimed quantum appeared excessive, and there was no basis to award indemnity costs or costs against counsel.
16 Sept 2020
The court concluded that the respondent's delay in obtaining probate was not solely due to his neglect given obstruction by others and thus did not justify his removal as executor; however the irreconcilable breakdown between the two trustees of the mirror trusts required removal of both trustees and appointment of an independent trustee empowered to transfer, repair/renovate and sell the property, account for past management and adjust distributions accordingly; the applicant's notice of discontinuance was effective but did not affect counterclaims; no order for costs against either party ex…
8 Sept 2020
The court ordered service on Mr Roberts and his two adult children, appointed Mr Roberts to represent his minor daughter Deirbhile Margaret Arohanui Roberts, and appointed both Ms Roberts and Mr Roberts to jointly represent their three minor children (Lavinia, Daphne and Larunda Roberts) while reserving leave to amend that direction if it becomes a case management issue; the court found the disclosure claim related to trustee duties and that appointment of an independent trustee would not of itself adversely affect the minors.
27 Aug 2020
Leave under r 19.5 was granted because the issues were confined, the dispute could be managed efficiently under Part 19 with affidavit evidence and limited interlocutory steps, and directing the matter to Part 19 was in the interests of justice and proportionate given the likely limited value of the sole trust asset.
4 Jun 2020
The statement of defence and counterclaim was struck out for failing to comply with the High Court Rules and for being prolix and disclosive of evidence and irrelevant material, but leave was granted to the defendant to file and serve a compliant pleading within 10 working days (by 18 June 2020); failing compliance, the claimant's claim will be dealt with on formal proof.
20 Nov 2019
It would be unjust to make the respondent personally liable for the applicant's costs because the respondent's conduct was reasonable in the context of prior related proceedings; both parties' costs should be met from the estate, with the respondent's costs quantified at $1,370.00 on a 2B basis and the applicant's reasonable costs to be paid by the estate.
25 Mar 2019
Because administration was stalled by an irreconcilable impasse and the defendant's continued rent-free occupation created a conflict of interest prejudicial to beneficiaries, the Court exercised its broad discretion under s 21 Administration Act to remove the executors and appointed independent professional administrators; the Court also ordered vacant possession so the property can be marketed and sold without further delay.
22 Mar 2019
The Court of Appeal concluded Jagose J erred in holding no party was successful; the High Court outcome matched the appellant's proposed compromise so the appellant was the successful party and entitled to scale 2B costs and disbursements; the non-party Livingstone was sufficiently involved and financially interested to be jointly and severally liable for the costs; only one omitted letter of 7 November 2018 was admitted as further evidence on appeal.
9 Mar 2016
The Court held removal of Carl as sole executor and trustee was not expedient: although there were concerns about informality of record keeping, interest claimed and hostility, there was no evidence of self‑dealing or misconduct sufficient to undermine administration for beneficiaries; instead the Court ordered appointment of an independent professional co‑trustee to bring objectivity and comply with the Trustee Act.