New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Vesting order under s52 trustee act 1956

Legal area

Court

5 Nov 2020

SHAW v SHAW [2020] NZHC 2910

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2910
Court

High Court

Because Derrick lacks mental capacity and remains a trustee, the Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction (supported by ss 51 and 52 Trustee Act 1956) to remove him as trustee and, to enable proper administration for the beneficiaries, vested the estate's one-half share in the remaining trustees; leave under Part 19 and dispensation of service and a litigation guardian were justified as the application was uncontested and no party would be prejudiced.
13 Oct 2020

RE GADDUM [2020] NZHC 2688

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2688
Court

High Court

Because the applicants were validly appointed as trustees out of court pursuant to s43 Trustee Act 1956, s52(1)(a) empowers the Court to vest the undivided one‑half share of the subject land in the applicants as trustees; the Court was satisfied the without‑notice procedure, dispensing with service, and hearing on the papers were justified and consequently made the vesting order.
31 Jul 2020

COLLINS v COLLINS [2020] NZHC 1890

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1890
Court

High Court

Because the respondent was validly removed as trustee and the continuing trustees must be able to deal with trust assets, the Court, exercising its statutory power under s52 Trustee Act 1956 and applying Part 19 procedure as appropriate, will vest the Banks Peninsula property in the continuing trustees; service and appointment of a litigation guardian were dispensed with because the respondent is incapacitated, there is no opposition and the application is administrative in nature.
18 Mar 2020

LLOYD & ASSOCIATES LTD & ANOR v HARCOURT [2020] NZHC 552

Citation

[2020] NZHC 552
Court

High Court

On the evidence the respondent is under a disability (dementia) and unable to manage trust affairs; under s52 of the Trustee Act 1956 the Court may vest trust land in the remaining trustees where a trustee is under disability, and it was therefore appropriate to remove the respondent as trustee and vest the property in the applicants while dispensing with service and a litigation guardian given the respondent's incapacity and lack of opposition.
9 Mar 2020

CHRISTINA MCNEILL AND CHRISTINA MCNEILL TRUSTEE SERVICES LTD v STEPHEN AGAR [2020] NZHC 607

Citation

[2020] NZHC 607
Court

High Court

Given that the former trustee had been validly removed, was uncooperative and could not be located for ordinary service, and that continued title being in his name was impeding necessary refinancing and trust business, it was expedient under s52 Trustee Act 1956 to vest the property in the present trustees subject to lodgement of indemnities protecting the former trustee from personal liability on secured debts; a modest costs contribution by the non-cooperating former trustee was appropriate.
7 Nov 2019

CHEYNE and STANDRING as Trustees of the Macetown Trust v CHEYNE [2019] NZHC 2909

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2909
Court

High Court

Because the respondent trustee was demonstrated to be permanently incapacitated and unable to perform trustee functions, the Court properly exercised its inherent jurisdiction to remove him and, under s 52 Trustee Act 1956, vested the trust properties in the continuing trustees; service and appointment of a litigation guardian were dispensed with as unnecessary in the circumstances.
11 Oct 2018

FRASER v Carey [2018] NZHC 13

Citation

[2018] NZHC 13
Court

High Court

Because the respondent was validly removed as trustee and certified mentally incapable, and the applicants were validly appointed, the Court had jurisdiction under s52 Trustee Act 1956 to vest the trust property in the new trustees and to dispense with service and appointment of a litigation guardian; allowing amendment of the 'no variation' clause was justified to enable trust administration while protecting beneficiaries.
13 Mar 2017

GODFREY & MCCORMICK [2017] NZHC 420

Citation

[2017] 3 NZLR 198
Court

High Court

An enduring power of attorney does not extend to powers over trust property or enable an attorney to retire a donor as trustee; where a trustee has lost capacity the court may remove the trustee and, under s52 Trustee Act 1956, vest trust property in the remaining trustees and dispense with service when appropriate.
18 Aug 2016

WEIR v WEIR [2016] NZHC 1920

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1920
Court

High Court

A vesting order under s52 Trustee Act 1956 should be made to vest 175 Mills & Ford Road in the names of the three newly appointed trustees because the trustee to be removed is incapacitated and has ceased to hold office under the trust deed, the appointing Deed validly appoints the new trustees who agree to act, the District Land Registrar will not accept an enduring power of attorney as sufficient for transfer, and the other trustees who are signatories do not oppose the order.