Addleman v Lambie Trustee Ltd - [2017] NZHC 2054

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2015-404-001359 [2017] NZHC 2054

UNDER Part 18 of the High Court Rules

BETWEEN

PRUDENCE ANNE ADDLEMAN Plaintiff

AND

LAMBIE TRUSTEE LIMITED Defendant

Hearing: 31 July 2017; 1 and 11 August 2017

Appearances:

R Rose and Y Karbhari for Plaintiff
D Chambers QC and I Williams for Defendant

Judgment:

25 August 2017

JUDGMENT OF WOOLFORD J

This judgment was delivered by me on 25 August 2017 at 4:00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/ Deputy Registrar
Date:

Solicitors/Counsel:
Bell Auckland, Auckland
Ms Chambers QC, Auckland
Mr Williams, Auckland

ADDLEMAN v LAMBIE TRUSTEE LIMITED [2017] NZHC 2054 [25 August 2017]

Introduction

[1] This is an unfortunate dispute between sisters as to what level of disclosure is appropriate for the affairs of the Lambie Trust (the Trust) which was settled by their cousin in 1990. Both sisters are beneficiaries of the Trust. The plaintiff and older sister, Prudence Addleman (Prudence), has received a copy of the Trust deed, documents evidencing various changes of trustees, a statement of the settlor as to the source of funds introduced into the Trust and a memorandum of wishes but nothing more. She wants to see the financial accounts and other material relating to the Trust’s operation in order to satisfy herself that the Trust has been managed properly.

[2] The younger sister, Annette Jamieson (Annette), is the sole director and shareholder of the defendant company, Lambie Trustee Limited, which is the sole trustee of the Trust. She has resisted requests for further disclosure from her sister on the basis that it is in effect her trust which she wants to keep confidential. She says that her sister is not entitled to more than what she has already received.

Factual background

[3] Prudence and Annette are two of four children of Alexander and Merryl Jamieson (Mr and Mrs Jamieson). The other two children are Anthony Jamieson (Anthony) and Meredith Strang (Meredith). The children grew up in Sydney where they lived with their parents. Mr Jamieson was a businessman with many and varied interests in businesses in Australia and abroad.

[4] On 30 December 1972, Annette dived into a tidal pool at Paradise Beach, one of the Northern Beaches of Sydney, and broke her spinal cord. She became a quadriplegic needing constant nursing care. She was just 19. She is now 63 and gave evidence in a wheelchair, having travelled from Sydney.

[5] Prudence is four years older than Annette. She moved to England about the

time of her sister’s accident where she married her husband, Martin Addleman, in

1976. She has lived in England ever since and gave evidence by way of AVL from

Madeira where she and her husband have a holiday home.

[6] Following her accident, Annette sued the local council for negligence and after a two week trial in the New South Wales Supreme Court in October 1979 was awarded record damages of A$981,333. In 1981 the council paid Annette A$1,029,084…

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 Addleman v Lambie Trustee Ltd

Details

AGLC: Addleman v Lambie Trustee Ltd [2017] NZHC 2054
Case: [2017] NZHC 2054
Decision Date: 25 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Prudence Addleman sought an order for the disclosure of information relating to the Lambie Trust, which had been settled in 1990. Annette Jamieson, the younger sister of Prudence, is the sole beneficiary and trustee of the Trust. The Trust was settled with the primary purpose of ensuring Annette's welfare and financial security. Prudence, who is one of four children of Alexander and Merryl Jamieson, received a distribution of $4.257 million from the Trust in 2002. She now seeks further information about the Trust on the basis that she is a beneficiary and wants to satisfy herself that the Trust has been managed properly. The court was required to decide whether Prudence is entitled to further disclosure of trust information and if so, the extent of such disclosure. The court held that Prudence was not entitled to the disclosure sought. The Trust was settled with the primary purpose of ensuring Annette's welfare and financial security. Prudence was only included as a beneficiary in the Trust deed on a contingent basis in case Annette died at an early age. The Trust was settled with Annette’s accident funds and earnings thereon. Prudence has already received a generous distribution from the Trust. The Trust was settled with the primary purpose of ensuring Annette's welfare and financial security. Her needs are great. Prudence has already received a generous distribution from the Trust. She has no need for further provision. I accept there is no real prospect of her receiving any further distribution. Prudence claims to be only after information but I am of the view that the provision of that information may well lead to further intra-familial discord. Annette’s privacy should be respected. The application for further and extensive disclosure is dismissed. Costs on a 2B basis are to follow the event. If counsel are unable to agree, memoranda should be filed within 28 days of the date of this judgment.

Orders