New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Trustees' powers

Legal area

Court

25 Oct 2022

Re DILWORTH OLD BOYS BENEVOLENT TRUST [2022] NZHC 2755

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2755
Court

High Court

The Court approved the proposed scheme because, after amendment of clause 9 to limit trustees to varying administrative provisions only, the scheme satisfied the requirements of ss32 and 33 of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 and complied with procedural requirements of ss34–36; the Attorney-General's report supported the scheme except for the original form of clause 9, and costs for the Attorney-General were fixed at $750 to be paid from the Trust's assets.
12 Nov 2019

LUSTY and BROWNE as executors of the Estate of Kenneth Richard Lusty v C M THORBURN and C E THORBURN as trustees of the THORBURN TRUST Costs Judgment [2019] NZHC 2945

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2945
Court

High Court

Costs were reserved because the plaintiffs' decision to bring summary judgment was not unreasonable given substantive factual disputes and Attorney‑General input, alternative procedures proposed by defendants were inappropriate for the substantive issues, settlement refusal was not plainly unjustified, and defendants' impecuniosity did not justify a costs order.
19 May 2014

NAERA and OTHERS v FENWICK and OTHERS [2014] NZSC 58

Citation

[2014] NZSC 58
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court concluded there was no proper basis to depart from the unanimous view of the lower courts that clause 3(a) conferred sufficiently broad power on the trustees to enter the Tikitere Project Agreement; the general power was not cut down by clause 3(b) nor by ss 229 and 244, and no miscarriage of justice justified further review, so the applicants' leave to appeal was declined.
22 Jun 2010

MCKNIGHT AND ORS V CRAIG AND ORS HC DUN CIV-2009-412-000919

Citation

openlaw-327012a1_3bfd_47ac_863f_18eeb016a201.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court approved the proposed variation because the applicants amended the draft Craig Family Trust deed to remove the identified potential detriments to minor and unborn beneficiaries, counsel for those beneficiaries confirmed no detriment remained, and approval was granted conditionally on the deed conforming to the amended draft filed 10 June 2010.
31 Mar 2010

DE BERNARDO AND ORS V DE BERNARDO AND ORS HC WN CIV-2010-485-380

Citation

openlaw-775d5729_072e_4332_ae8e_50ed8ea1812c.pdf
Court

High Court

Applying s64A and established authorities, the court concluded the variation should be approved because the likely benefits to the minor and contingent/unborn classes (probable participation at vesting, family cohesion and welfare) and the legitimate need for enhanced trustee powers to manage a $17m corpus over an extended term outweigh any detriment; the minor's expressed views and evidence on improbability of third-class members supported the exercise of the court's discretion to approve the Deed of Variation.
23 Dec 2009

SAVE OUR ARTS CENTRE SOCIETY INCORPORATED V THE ARTS CENTRE OF CHRISTCHURCH TRUST BOARD AND ORS HC CHCH CIV 2009-409-002813

Citation

openlaw-1b423c01_6ecd_484c_b4f6_5bf2aded53da.pdf
Court

High Court

The application for an interim injunction to halt the Resource Management Act consent process was refused: although there are serious questions to be tried about some deed amendments and the trustees' exercise of power, the balance of convenience and overall justice favour allowing the RMA process to continue subject to undertakings and procedural directions; the High Court will manage and fast-track the trust litigation to align with RMA hearings and preserve overall justice.
5 May 2009

EWINGTON & ANOR V SCHULZ AND ORS HC AK CIV 2008-404-6596

Citation

openlaw-a15a2c6e_bed7_4036_acb1_881e218e7f17.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court exercised its wide discretion under s64A of the Trustee Act 1956 to approve the proposed Deed of Family Arrangement because the arrangement, taken as a whole, benefits the parties, has effective informed consent from adults, adequately protects the minor and contingent/unborn beneficiaries through bespoke trust arrangements, and the construction of the will (ordinary meaning of 'survive') did not require withholding distribution until the life tenant's death.
18 Feb 2008

WESTBURY & ANOR V KINGI & ORS

Citation

openlaw-96d70cb2_3f8c_4ba7_8fc5_a439da035ffe.pdf
Court

High Court

The court fixed the applicant's one-eighth share of the four specified Taupo properties at $106,500 based on the agreed valuation total of $852,000 and declined to order immediate coercive payment, instead expecting payment within 60 days and directing a process for memoranda on costs and for further orders if payment is not made.