New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Directions under s66 trustee act 1956

  • 4 Dec 2023

    BLAKEBOROUGH v BLAKEBOROUGH-KIRK [2023] NZHC 3495

    Citation
    [2023] NZHC 3495
    Court
    High Court

    The trustees had power under cl10.1 of the deed, with the appointor's consent, to resettle unallocated trust capital; the Court under s66 Trustee Act 1956 should direct resettlement because it best protects beneficiary interests given risk of imprudent management, the settlors' memorandum of wishes, the breakdown of trustee-beneficiary relations, and the formal proof requirements were satisfied.

    • Resettlement of trust
    • Trustee powers
    • Directions under s66 trustee act 1956
    • Memorandum of wishes
    • Formal proof procedure

  • 16 Dec 2021

    KAIN v PUBLIC TRUST [2021] NZCA 685

    Citation
    [2021] NZCA 685
    Court
    Court of Appeal

    The Court held (1) the High Court directions regarding recognition of the equality principle and limitations about taking into account prior distributions ([108](b),(c) and [109](d)) and the direction on subsequent wishes ([134](b)) were correct and are upheld; (2) the High Court's [134](a) wording was ambiguous and is replaced: Public Trust is entitled to take into account the settlor's wishes and must read and understand them, but may only take them into account to the extent they are not inconsistent with the trust's terms and purposes; trustees retain independent judgment.

    • Statements of wishes
    • Discretionary trusts
    • Trustee duties and discretions
    • Equality clause (1997 deed)
    • Directions under s66 trustee act 1956
    • Inter-entity unwind

  • 27 Jun 2016

    S R HAMILTON CORPORATE TRUSTEE LTD AND LAMB TRUST SERVICES LTD v WHITE [2016] NZHC 1408

    Citation
    [2016] NZHC 1408
    Court
    High Court

    No enforceable contract arose from the trustees' 16 June 2014 letter and the third defendant's 19 June 2014 acceptance because the option was expressly conditional on indemnities from all three beneficiaries (a material term) which were not provided; the tie-break discretion in the settlor's memorandum had no contractual force and could not render the unilateral acceptance binding. The trustees were entitled to directions under s66 and, acting in the best interests of the trust estate and treating beneficiaries equally, the court directed trustees to offer the property to all three beneficiar…

    • Trustee duties
    • Directions under s66 trustee act 1956
    • Specific performance
    • Contract formation
    • Valuation
    • Weathertightness remediation

  • 19 Sept 2012

    JASPERS v GREENWOOD & JASPERS HC WN CIV 2012-485-1772

    Citation
    openlaw-24d584c8_8922_4605_a2d4_6a0fe8dc0892.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    S68 did not apply because the trustee's duty to sell derived from the High Court consent orders (s66 direction) rather than from the Trustee Act; even if s68 applied the applicant bore the onus to demonstrate ultra vires action, bad faith, irrelevant consideration or Wednesbury unreasonableness; the trustee's decision to prefer open-market sale and to reject off-market proposals by a beneficiary was within the range of reasonable responses and not reviewable, so the application was dismissed.

    • Trustee powers and duties
    • Review under s68 trustee act 1956
    • Directions under s66 trustee act 1956
    • Consent orders
    • Sale of trust property
    • Standard of judicial review (wednesbury)

  • 9 Aug 2007

    WILSON AND ANOR V BAILY AND ORS HC DUN CIV-2007-412-000275

    Citation
    openlaw-aa2d91b2_dd35_4b29_a0a4_a5aee60c2e6f.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    Because the applicants were entitled to the relief sought under s66 Trustee Act 1956 and there was no formal opposition filed by the first respondent (and the second respondents did not oppose), the Court ordered discharge of the existing trustees and appointment of Perpetual Trust Limited and confirmed the terms in the Deed of Retirement and Appointment including reimbursements, interest rate and apportionment.

    • Trustee removal
    • Appointment of corporate trustee
    • Directions under s66 trustee act 1956
    • Deed of retirement and appointment
    • Interest and apportionment

  • 18 Oct 2006

    L V NORTH AND S B HETHERINGTON V R J TEAGUE HC CHCH CIV-2006-409-001900

    Citation
    openlaw-92a6f954_5073_42d6_93c2_069ef5efaa7f.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    The court directed the trustees under s66 Trustee Act 1956 to distribute the estate in accordance with the accounts and deed of release; the court made indicative costs awards (specified amounts) and reserved finalisation of costs to allow the absent first defendant an opportunity to be heard, permitting trustees to deduct confirmed costs from that beneficiary's share.

    • Directions under s66 trustee act 1956
    • Distribution of estate
    • Deed of release
    • Beneficiary refusal to sign
    • Indicative costs and deduction from estate