Boddy v Symonds - [2021] NZHC 3124

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2019-409-140

[2021] NZHC 3124

UNDER The Trustee Act 1956

AND

IN THE MATTER

of the Estate of JOHN FRANCIS ALFRED CLAYDON, Deceased

BETWEEN

JASON JAMES BODDY, as executor and trustee of the Will of DARREN

JOHN CLAYDON
Plaintiff

AND

CAROL LINDA SYMONDS and ELZABETH ROBYN DRABBLE

Defendants

Hearing: 16 November 2021

Appearances:

A G Whitcombe and N Reive for Plaintiff R A Peters for Defendants

Judgment:

19 November 2021

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE LESTER

BODDY v SYMONDS [2021] NZHC 3124 [19 November 2021]

[1] The defendants applied to strike out the amended statement of claim in this proceeding but withdrew their application following the completion of submissions on the basis an amended statement of claim was to be filed. Counsel were informed that a judgment would issue addressing the matters to be dealt with in the amended pleading.

[2] This proceeding was originally commenced in 2019 when the plaintiff was Darren John Claydon (Darren). Darren died on 27 April 2020. The present plaintiff, Mr Jason Boddy (Jason) is the executor and trustee of Darren’s estate.

[3] The proceeding concerns a Will Trust relating to the estate of Darren’s deceased’s father, John Francis Alfred Claydon (Mr Claydon), who died on 1 January 2003. The defendants are the executors and trustees of that Will Trust (the Trust).

[4] A dispute between Darren and the trustees first came before this Court in 2012, resulting in a judgment of Fogarty J in Claydon v Symonds.1 That proceeding concerned an application by Darren for the removal of the trustees of Mr Claydon’s estate.

[5]As Fogarty J summarised in his judgment:

[3] After making provision for the payment of his debts and administration expenses the will [of Mr Claydon] provided for the residue of the estate to be provided into seven parts: three of the shares being one share each to go to a friend, Beverley Lawson, to Elizabeth Drabble, one of the trustees, and to her husband Brian Drabble. The will then provided to hold the four shares on the following discretionary trust:

1.To invest the trust fund as if they were beneficially entitled to it;

2.To apply the income and capital of the trust fund for the benefit of such of my son, Darren John Claydon and his children (if any) as my trustees think fit;

3.To add any undistributed income to the capital of the trust fund;

4.On the death of my son at such earlier time as my trustees in their discretion think fit, to end the trust by distributing the trust fund

1 Claydon v Symonds [2012] NZHC 2501, (2012) 3 NZTR 22-026..

amongst such of my said son and his children then living as my trustees think fit.

5.My trustees may exercise their discretionary powers when and how they think fit and shall not be under any obligation to make payments to or for the benefit of all my said son…

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 Boddy v Symonds

Details

AGLC: Boddy v Symonds [2021] NZHC 3124
Case: [2021] NZHC 3124
Decision Date: 19 November 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Boddy v Symonds involved a dispute over the administration of a Will Trust established under the will of John Francis Alfred Claydon, who died in 2003. The plaintiff, Jason James Boddy, as executor and trustee of Darren John Claydon’s will, brought the proceeding against Carol Linda Symonds and Elizabeth Robyn Drabble, who were the executors and trustees of the Will Trust. The case revolved around the trustees' alleged failure to properly address applications for assistance made by Darren Claydon, who was a beneficiary under the trust but passed away during the litigation.

The central legal issues the court had to decide were whether the trustees breached their fiduciary duties by not adequately responding to Darren's requests for financial assistance from the trust and whether there existed a conflict of interest that influenced the trustees' decisions. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the trustees' interpretation of the default clause in the will affected their duty towards Darren and potentially misapplied the terms of the trust.

In delivering the judgment, Associate Judge Lester addressed the issues by noting that the trustees had discretion over the trust's assets and were tasked with balancing the needs of the beneficiaries, including Darren, over the long term. The judge highlighted that the trustees were justified in their approach of preserving capital, particularly given Darren's terminal illness and uncertain future. However, the judge also indicated that the trustees should have been more responsive to Darren's needs, considering his immediate circumstances. The judge further noted that the trustees might have misunderstood the beneficiaries' status under the default clause, leading to a potential conflict of interest. The judge concluded that the plaintiff needed to amend the statement of claim to more precisely articulate the grounds for the claim.

The court ordered that the plaintiff file an amended statement of claim within 20 working days, and suggested the possibility of a judicial settlement conference to manage the proceeding efficiently. The judge emphasized the importance of considering the economic implications of the litigation, as the costs could quickly consume the amounts in dispute, potentially leaving the trustees to cover costs from their personal funds if they were to lose the case.

Orders