NOTE: ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF ANY PERSONS OR ENTITIES CONNECTED TO THIS PROCEEDING REMAINS IN FORCE.
NOTE: HIGH COURT ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF APPELLANTS AND RESPONDENTS REMAINS IN FORCE.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA
SC 106/2022 [2024] NZSC 161
BETWEEN
A, B AND C Appellants
AND
D AND E LIMITED AS TRUSTEES OF THE Z TRUST Respondents
Hearing:
13–14 June 2023
Court:
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O’Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Counsel:
D A T Chambers KC, I T K T R F Hikaka, J L Beverwijk and M I S Phillipps for Appellants A J Steele, M J Wenley and M A B Black for Respondents V T M Bruton KC as counsel assisting the Court
REASONS (Given by Winkelmann CJ and Ellen France J)
Table of Contents
Para No
Introduction
[1]
Background
[6]
The parties
[6]
Factual narrative
[9]
Nature of the claim
[19]
The decision of the High Court
[21]
The decision of the Court of Appeal
[31]
Relevant legal principles
[43]
Was there a fiduciary relationship?
[43]
The parent/child relationship
[54]
The case for the parties
[67]
Application to this case
[72]
Result
[84]
Introduction
The appellants were abused in a most shocking way by their father when they were children. They have suffered as a result of this abuse on an ongoing basis. Their appeal to this Court raises issues about whether they are entitled to a remedy in equity to obtain some recompense for the harm caused by his conduct. The issues arise in this way.
The appellants all left the family home while they were teenagers. After leaving home, they had virtually no contact with their father. They did not lay complaints with the police about his conduct or bring civil proceedings against him. As we shall discuss, while the father’s earlier wills did make some provision for the appellants, his final will did not. Further, some 30 years after contact between the appellants and their father ceased, the father gifted to the Z Trust (the Trust) his home and some shares — assets that, at the date of the High Court hearing, were worth about $700,000 in total. The appellants are not beneficiaries of the Trust.
The appellants’ father died in April 2016. Later that year, the appellants made a claim against their father’s estate under the Family Protection Act 1955. But that claim will be meaningless unless the assets gifted to the Trust revert back to the estate. The father’s estate, after deduction of the assets transferred, is worth about $47,000.
The Family Protection Act claim has been put on hold pending determination of the present proceedings. These proceedings were filed in the High Court in mid. They essentially seek to unwind the transfer of the assets to the Trust. The appellants…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading A v D
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
A v D [2024] NZSC 161
Case
[2024] NZSC 161
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Supreme Court of New Zealand dismissed the appeal brought by the appellants against the decision of the Court of Appeal. The appellants sought a remedy in equity for the harm caused by their father's abuse, which continued until they left home as teenagers. They argued that the father breached fiduciary duties owed to them when he transferred his assets into a trust to prevent them from claiming under the Family Protection Act. The High Court had initially found in favour of the appellants, but the Court of Appeal reversed that decision. The Supreme Court held that while there was a fiduciary relationship between the father and the appellants during their childhood, it ceased when the father no longer had caregiving responsibilities and the appellants became adults. The Court found no basis for extending the fiduciary relationship or imposing fiduciary duties in relation to the transfer of assets. The appeal was dismissed, and costs were reserved.