De La Rossi v Pilkington

[2012] NZHC 1826

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2012-404-3221 [2012] NZHC 1826

UNDER  Part 19 of the High Court Rules

IN THE MATTER OF     an application under s 51 of the Trustee Act

1956

BETWEEN  ELAINE DE LA ROSSI Applicant

ANDTREVOR ROSS PILKINGTON First Respondent

ANDMARK BERNARD WATSON Second Respondent

Hearing:         25 July 2012

Counsel:         A F Grant for the Applicant

J H Hunter for the First Respondent
No appearance by or for the Second Respondent

Judgment:      25 July 2012

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF THE HON JUSTICE KÓS

Instructing Solicitors:

Mr D Burgess, Solicitor, Auckland

Mr S Anderson, Solicitor, Auckland

Counsel:
Mr A F Grant, Barrister, Radcliffe Chambers, Auckland

Ms J H Hunter, Barrister, William Martin Chambers, Auckland

Ms K Davenport, Barrister, Bankside Chambers, Auckland

DE LA ROSSI V PILKINGTON HC AK CIV-2012-404-3221 [25 July 2012]

Background

[1]      This  is  an  application  by  Elaine  De  La  Rossi,  former  wife  of  the  first respondent Trevor Ross Pilkington, for removal and replacement of the trustees of the Twin Oaks 2008 Trust.

[2]      The present trustees are the applicant, Ms De La Rossi, her former husband

Mr Pilkington, the first respondent, and the second respondent, a Mr Mark Watson.

[3]      The trust deed requires the three trustees to act unanimously.  Following the breakdown of the marriage between the applicant and first respondent the trust has become unmanageable.   The parties recognise the need for orders to be made to effect practical management of the trust.   There is no opposition to the present application.  I note that Mr Watson has been served with the papers and I have seen a communication from him which suggests he accepts this outcome.

[4]      Ms Kate Davenport has been appointed to act for an extant grandchild and also any unborn grandchildren.  She has not been able to take effective instructions but does not oppose the application.

Disposition

[5]      In the circumstances I exercise my inherent jurisdiction to remove the present trustees and exercise the power conferred on me under s 51 of the Trustee Act 1956 to appoint the Public Trust as sole trustee of the Twin Oaks 2008 Trust.

[6]      There may be an issue as to costs.   Ms Hunter has suggested a timetable which is not opposed by Mr Grant for the applicant.  It is that if the applicant seeks costs she is to do so within 21 days; the respondents may reply within a further 21

days, and there is final reply right then to the applicant 14 days thereafter.

Stephen Kós J