Legal Research
Cases
Chambers v Chambers

Chambers v Chambers

Case [2016] NZHC 583 6 April 2016

Contract Formation

Implied Terms

Unconscionable Conduct

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV 2014-485-6566 [2016] NZHC 583

UNDER
the Administration Act 1969 and the

Family Protection Act 1955

IN THE MATTER OF

the Estate of Sir Robert Stanley Chambers

BETWEEN

DAVID ROBERT CHAMBERS Plaintiff

AND

DEBORAH ANN TOHILL CHAMBERS First Defendant

SIMON CHARLES BLACKWELL Second Defendant

ZELDA EVE TOHILL HOLLINGS and CAITLIN ROSE TOHILL HOLLINGS Third Defendants

Hearing:
19 and 20 October 2015 (further memoranda on 3 November

2015)

Appearances:

J Farmer QC and W Galvin for the plaintiff
J Miles QC for the first and second defendants
J Orpin for the third defendants

Judgment:

6 April 2016

JUDGMENT OF MALLON J

Table of Contents

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... [1] Background........................................................................................................................................ [6]
Family arrangements ..................................................................................................................... [6] Financial position......................................................................................................................... [11] Relationship property arrangements ............................................................................................ [19]
Events after Sir Robert’s death ..................................................................................................... [39]
Evidence objection ....................................................................................................................... [42]

Claim for removal of administrators ............................................................................................. [43]

Introduction .................................................................................................................................. [43]
The Property (Relationships) Act ................................................................................................. [47]

CHAMBERS v TOHILL CHAMBERS [2016] NZHC 583 [6 April 2016]

The effect of the second RPA and the Variation ............................................................................ [58] Can a personal representative apply to set aside a s 21 agreement? ........................................... [62] Family Protection Act claim ......................................................................................................... [87] Derivative claim and High Court Rules ......................................................................................[119] Conclusion on first cause of action ............................................................................................ [120]

Express trust .................................................................................................................................. [121] Constructive trust.......................................................................................................................... [124] Result .............................................................................................................................................. [148] Addendum...................................................................................................................................... [149]

Introduction

[1] Sir Robert Chambers, a sitting Supreme Court Judge, died suddenly in his sleep on the evening of 21 May 2013 aged 59 years. He had suffered a brain aneurysm. His untimely passing was a significant loss to the law as well as, of course, to his family and friends. This proceeding concerns his family, and in particular the carefully considered financial arrangements he made for them in the event of his death.

[2] These arrangements were documented in his will and a relationship property agreement, as amended over the course of his relationship with Lady Chambers QC, his second wife. Pursuant to these documents, Lady Chambers is one of the executors of his estate and has by survivorship control of their relationship property. The value of the shared relationship property at the date of his death was in excess of
$11 million. It may be worth considerably more than that now although this is in dispute. Apart from the relationship property, the value of Sir Robert’s estate under his will is in the vicinity of $1 million.

[3] The proceeding before me is brought by David Chambers, Sir Robert’s eldest

son from his first marriage to Claire Chambers. He wishes to receive a payment of

$2.5 million, being a sum described in the relationship property agreement as his “entitlement”, but which is subject to various matters. Lady Chambers has declined to make that payment on the basis that she is not required to do so under the relationship property agreement at this point in time, and she considers that it was not Sir Robert’s intention that she do so.

[4] David has brought…

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 Chambers v Chambers

Details

AGLC: Chambers v Chambers [2016] NZHC 583
Case: [2016] NZHC 583
Decision Date: 6 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Chambers v Chambers involved a dispute over the estate of Sir Robert Stanley Chambers, a deceased Supreme Court Judge. The proceedings were brought by David Robert Chambers, Sir Robert's eldest son from his first marriage, against Deborah Ann Tohill Chambers, Sir Robert's second wife, and others. David sought a payment of $2.5 million, referred to as his "entitlement" under a relationship property agreement, and argued that his father breached his moral duty under the Family Protection Act by not providing adequately for him. The case also involved claims under the Property (Relationships) Act and constructive trust claims.

The High Court, in a comprehensive judgment, dismissed David's claims for the removal of the estate's administrators, a declaration under the Family Protection Act, and an express trust. However, the Court found in favour of David on his constructive trust claim. The Court held that Deborah Ann Tohill Chambers had fiduciary obligations under the relationship property agreement and that a constructive trust could arise from an abuse of those obligations. The Court did not compel a payment of the entitlement but directed that Deborah Ann Tohill Chambers must exercise her discretion under the agreement in light of all relevant circumstances, including David's interests. Costs were reserved, and the judgment was subject to redactions for privacy reasons before publication.

Orders