New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Beneficiary exclusion

Legal area

Court

1 Apr 2021

LEGLER, KLAUI, and LEGLER v FORMANNOIJ [2021] NZHC 737

Citation

[2021] NZHC 737
Court

High Court

Defendants' discovery application was dismissed because the documents sought were not relevant to the sole factual issue pleaded— the trustee's purpose at the time she appointed KTL—since the documents were not in the trustee's possession or control at that time and could only serve as after‑the‑fact justification; defendants' affirmative allegations did not alter relevance on the pleaded case.
28 May 2020

LUISA RUOCCO, ANTONELLA THERESE ASPELL, JOHN PAUL RUOCCO AND JOHN CLAYTON MEO v LUIGI GERARD RUOCCO [2020] NZHC 1150

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1150
Court

High Court

Given the written consents (including parental consents for minors), the equitable allocation of assets under the settlement, the benefits to the trust and beneficiaries (reduced cost, stress and reputational harm), and absence of contest, the court will approve the variation under s 64A and direct the trustees under s 66 to effect the deed of settlement transfers and distributions.
14 Feb 2018

THE PUBLIC TRUST v LU [2018] NZHC 130

Citation

[2018] NZHC 130
Court

High Court

The deed purporting to exclude Mike was executed solely by the settlor and not by the trustees; clause 12.1 vests the exclusion power in the trustees and clause 11.1 requires exercise or ratification by resolution signed by all trustees; because those requirements were not satisfied the deed is invalid and of no legal effect, leaving Mike as a discretionary and final beneficiary; the Public Trust is entitled to recover its reasonable solicitor/client costs and disbursements from the trust assets.
17 May 2016

CODYMO TRUSTEES LIMITED v PAUL RAYMOND CHAPMAN [2016] NZHC 1007

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1007
Court

High Court

The Court, exercising s66 Trustee Act 1956 and its inherent jurisdiction as guardian of trusts, approved the trustees entering into the settlement resolving the dispute over the Asteron investment portfolio and directed that the deeds executed in escrow take effect, thereby enabling the trustees to obtain the protections of s69 as applicable.
22 Oct 2008

MACPHERSON AND ORS V MACPHERSON AND ORS HC PMN CIV-2007-454-849

Citation

openlaw-7463785d_72d0_445b_a715_9a4b353ed5f7.pdf
Court

High Court

Although exclusion of future spouses constituted a detriment to that contingent class, the Court found the indirect and tangible benefits (preservation of trust for settlors' children and remoter issue, retention of settlors' continuing interest, and enhancement of welfare and honour of the family) sufficiently counterbalanced the detriment under the s64A proviso; accordingly the Court approved the proposed trust variations.

New Zealand Case Law

LEGLER, KLAUI, and LEGLER v FORMANNOIJ [2021] NZHC 737

LUISA RUOCCO, ANTONELLA THERESE ASPELL, JOHN PAUL RUOCCO AND JOHN CLAYTON MEO v LUIGI GERARD RUOCCO [2020] NZHC 1150

THE PUBLIC TRUST v LU [2018] NZHC 130

CODYMO TRUSTEES LIMITED v PAUL RAYMOND CHAPMAN [2016] NZHC 1007

MACPHERSON AND ORS V MACPHERSON AND ORS HC PMN CIV-2007-454-849