Gatfield v Hinton - [2024] NZHC 1712

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2023-404-2969

[2024] NZHC 1712

UNDER
Parts 5 and 18 of the High Court Rules 2016, the Trusts Act 2019 and the inherent

jurisdiction of the Court

IN THE MATTER

of an application for review under section 126 of the Trusts Act 2019; claims for breaches of trustee duties; and removal of trustee

BETWEEN

GILLIAN JANE GATFIELD

First Plaintiff/Respondent

EMMA JACQUELINE PEARSON

Second Plaintiff/Respondent

AND

ANNE ELIZABETH HINTON

Defendant/Applicant

Hearing: 11 June 2024

Appearances:

M A Jeffries for First and Second Plaintiffs/Respondents A S Butler KC for Defendant/Applicant

A H Waalkens KC for Interested Parties (J M Allen and R M Gatfield)

Judgment:

26 June 2024

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE LESTER

This judgment was delivered by me on 26 June 2024 at 3:30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
………………………………

GATFIELD v HINTON [2024] NZHC 1712 [26 June 2024]

[1] A dispute exists between the four surviving daughters and a grandchild of Kenneth Miles Gatfield (Ken) and Jacqueline Mary Gatfield (Jacqui) concerning a family bach built by Ken and Jacqui. The four sisters are Gillian (plaintiff/respondent), Anne (defendant/applicant) and their sisters Judith and Robin. Emma (second defendant) is, as I understand, the only child of the late Kay Gatfield, the fifth sister who died in September 2020.

[2] Ken died in 2012, surviving Jacqui. The dispute concerns Ken’s estate of which Anne is the sole trustee. The right to use the bach is represented by one share in a company. Ken’s estate was left equally to the five sisters with Kay’s share passing to Emma. Anne sold the share to Judith and Robin in February 2022, who have paid the purchase price. As the share has been transferred to Judith and Robin it is no longer in the estate. Judith and Robin are not parties to this proceeding but were directed to be served. They have filed an appearance opposing the relief sought by Gillian and Emma.

[3] Gillian and Emma say that as long ago as 2013, Anne promised to transfer her interest in the share to them. For many years Gillian and Emma say they paid outgoings in relation to the bach as if they were its owners.

[4] This proceeding was commenced on 7 December 2023. In a 55-page statement of claim running to 221 paragraphs, Gillian and Emma seek a range of orders against Anne.

Anne seeks the proceeding be referred to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): What does she have to establish?

[5] On 15 March 2024, Anne applied for orders that this proceeding be referred to mediation and, if mediation is unsuccessful, that the matter be determined by arbitration. The application is made pursuant to s 145 of the Trusts Act 2019 (the Act) which provides:

145 Power of court to order ADR process for internal matter

(1)The court may, at the request of a trustee…

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 Gatfield v Hinton

Details

AGLC: Gatfield v Hinton [2024] NZHC 1712
Case: [2024] NZHC 1712
Decision Date: 26 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case is a family dispute concerning the estate of Ken and Jacqui Gatfield. The four surviving sisters, Gillian, Emma, Judith, and Robin, are in contention with Anne, their sister and sole trustee of Ken's estate, regarding the management and distribution of the estate, particularly focusing on a family bach. Anne has applied for the dispute to be referred to alternative dispute resolution (ADR) under section 145 of the Trusts Act 2019. Gillian and Emma oppose the application.

The legal issues the court had to decide were whether the proceeding was a "matter" as defined by the Act, whether an application for referral to ADR could be made by interlocutory application, and whether an Associate Judge could deal with such an application. The court held that the proceeding was a "matter" as it involved a dispute between the trustee and beneficiaries. It also held that an application for referral to ADR could be made by interlocutory application and that an Associate Judge had the jurisdiction to deal with such an application. The court then applied the legal principles relevant to section 145 of the Act, which allows for the court to order ADR. Considering factors such as cost, confidentiality, and the potential for resolution, the court decided that mediation and then arbitration would be appropriate. The court granted the application, appointed a mediator, and reserved the right to seek a Tomlin Order if a settlement was reached. Costs were reserved pending the outcome of the mediation.

Orders