Bundz v Anderson - [2025] NZHC 887

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TIMARU REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE TIHI-O-MARU ROHE

CIV-2022-476-19

[2025] NZHC 887

UNDER the Trusts Act 2018

IN THE MATTER

of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court

BETWEEN

KODIE BUNDZ

First Plaintiff

ROY BUNDZ
Second Plaintiff

AND

RUSSELL GRAY REID ANDERSON

First Defendant

HG LAW TRUSTEES 105 LIMITED

Second Defendant

Hearing: (On the papers)

Counsel:

G A Paine for Plaintiffs

R G Napier for First Defendant
P V Cornegé for Second Defendant

Judgment:

11 April 2025

Reissued:

16 May 2025

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE LESTER

(costs)

Note:This judgment has been reissued under the Slip Rule. The following paragraphs have been changed: [12], [13], [14], and [24] to reflect the change of name from “Perpetual Guardian” to “Perpetual Trust Limited”.

BUNDZ v ANDERSON [2025] NZHC 887 [11 April 2025]

[1] At the heart of this proceeding as originally filed, was an error made by the first defendant, Mr Anderson. It seems Mr Anderson, a trustee of the LC Craighead Family Trust (the Trust), mistakenly believed that a property at Gleniti Road in Timaru (the property) was owned by him personally when in fact it was owned by the Trust. The trustees of the Trust are Mr Anderson and HG Law Trustees 105 Limited (HG Law).

[2] The first plaintiff, Mr Kodie Bundz (Kodie), is the final beneficiary of the Trust. Initial enquiries made on his behalf resulted in Kodie being informed that all assets of the Trust had been distributed and that there were no assets remaining in the Trust. It is common ground that was an error. The property remained in the ownership of the Trust.

[3] Mr Paine, counsel for Kodie, at that point acting for Mr Roy Bundz (Roy) who is Kodie’s father, wrote on 12 October 2021 to the solicitors for Mr Anderson referring to what Mr Paine understood was Mr Anderson’s intention to sell the property and use the proceeds of sale for himself. The letter also referred to the possibility of an application to remove the then trustees of the Trust and replace them with an institutional trustee.

[4] On the same date, Mr Paine wrote to Mr Gavin Arnet of Arnet Law, who acted for the second defendant, HG Law, advising that he had instructions to apply to remove Mr Anderson and H Law as trustees of the Trust. That letter concluded:

It would be my view that it would be quicker, easier and considerably cheaper for your company and Mr Anderson to realise the hopeless position that you are both in and agree to resign as trustees and appoint an institutional trustee company to manage the [T]rust. If you do not do this and court orders are necessary, indemnity costs will be sought against all those parties involved regardless of who they believe they are acting for, and the court will not make an order of costs against the [T]rust so the costs will be…

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 Bundz v Anderson

Details

AGLC: Bundz v Anderson [2025] NZHC 887
Case: [2025] NZHC 887
Decision Date: 11 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Bundz v Anderson was brought by Kodie Bundz and Roy Bundz against Russell Gray Reid Anderson and HG Law Trustees 105 Limited. The plaintiffs sought orders including the removal of the defendants as trustees of the LC Craighead Family Trust and the appointment of Perpetual Trust Ltd as replacement trustee. The dispute arose from an error made by Mr Anderson, a trustee of the Trust, who mistakenly believed a property at Gleniti Road in Timaru was owned by him personally, rather than by the Trust. The plaintiffs sought to have the property transferred to Kodie, the final beneficiary of the Trust.

The central legal issue was whether the defendants were entitled to be indemnified for their costs from the Trust property. The court had to consider whether the plaintiffs’ insistence on transferring the property to Kodie, based on the mistaken belief that the vesting date had been brought forward due to error, was reasonable. The court also had to assess whether the plaintiffs’ delay in issuing proceedings and failure to seek resolution informally through a "letter before action" were justified.

The court found that the defendants were entitled to be indemnified for their costs from the Trust property. The error made by Mr Anderson did not entitle the plaintiffs to insist on the immediate transfer of the property to Kodie. The court emphasised that the trustees were not obliged to act as if the mistake represented a truly informed decision. Furthermore, the plaintiffs' delay in issuing proceedings and failure to seek resolution informally before litigation were not justified. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' approach was driven by an incorrect focus on the mistaken belief that the vesting date had been brought forward, and that the defendants were entitled to be indemnified from the Trust property for their costs.

The court ordered that the defendants were to be indemnified for their costs from the Trust property, with HG Law’s costs totalling $15,756.32 including GST and disbursements, and Mr Anderson’s costs amounting to $13,309.71 including GST and disbursements. Additionally, the plaintiffs’ reasonable costs on a 2B basis were to be paid to Kodie from the Trust, but not by the defendants personally.

Orders