Glover v Glover

Case [2017] NZHC 641


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

CIV-2017-470-0001 [2017] NZHC 641

UNDER Section 64A Trustee Act 1956

BETWEEN

GAEL LEE GLOVER First Applicant

AND

IAN WILLIAM GLOVER Second Applicant

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

C J Forbes for First Applicant
L A Stewart for Second Applicant

Judgment:

4 April 2017

JUDGMENT OF PETERS J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Peters on 4 April 2017 at 5 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date: ...................................

Solicitors:           Bush Forbes, Tauranga

Holland Beckett, Tauranga

RE GLOVER [2017] NZHC 641 [4 April 2017]

[1]      This is an application by the First and Second Applicants, Mrs Gael Glover and Mr Ian Glover, for orders pursuant to s 64A Trustee Act 1956 (“Act”).  Section

64A permits the Court, if it thinks fit, to make an order approving a variation of trust on behalf of any unborn or unknown person.

[2]      The  Applicants  also  seek  leave  to  bring  their  application  by  way  of originating application and seek directions as to representation and service.   The originating application is not opposed and I grant the leave and make the directions sought (see [1] of the interlocutory application dated 22 December 2016).

Background

[3]      Mrs Glover settled the Gael Glover Family Trust and Mr Glover settled the

Ian Glover Family Trust on 20 July 1984.

[4]      The  beneficiaries  of  the  Gael  Glover  Family  Trust  are  Mr  Glover,  the children of Mr and Mrs Glover, the children’s children and various other family members.

[5]      The beneficiaries of the Ian Glover Family Trust are the same, except that

Mrs Glover is a beneficiary in place of Mr Glover.

[6]      Mr and Mrs Glover have separated and they seek to vary each trust so as to: (a)       exclude Mr Glover and include Mrs Glover as a beneficiary of the

Gael Glover Family Trust; and

(b)      exclude Mrs Glover and include Mr Glover as a beneficiary of the Ian

Glover Family Trust.

[7]      The trustees of the Gael Glover Family Trust are Mrs Glover and Michael John O’Neale.   The trustees of the Ian Glover Family Trust are Mr Glover and Mr O’Neale.   By memorandum dated 20 February 2017, counsel for the trustees, Mr D Lyon, advised the Court that the trustees support the proposed variations and that they consent to the Court making the orders, ie giving approval to the variations,

on the grounds that the proposed variations will assist the functioning of the trusts in the future and will not adversely affect the future beneficial interests of unborn grandchildren.

[8]      By memorandum dated 21 February 2017, Mr M Ward-Johnson, counsel for the  unborn  grandchildren  advised  that  he  had  reviewed  all  of  the  relevant information and considered the proposed variations would not have an adverse effect on the interests of the unborn grandchildren and that he too consented to the making of the orders sought.

[9]      By memorandum dated 23 February 2017, counsel for the Applicants put before the Court copies of the proposed deeds of variation of trust executed by Mr and Mrs Glover, Mr O’Neale, and all adult beneficiaries of each trust.

Result

[10]     Given  these  matters,  I  am  satisfied  that  it  is  appropriate  to  approve  the proposed variations and, accordingly, I make orders in terms of [1](a) and [1](b) of the originating application dated 21 December 2016.

..................................................................

Peters J

Details
AGLC
Glover v Glover [2017] NZHC 641
Case
[2017] NZHC 641
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand considered an application under the Trustee Act 1956 by Mrs. Gael Glover and Mr. Ian Glover to vary the terms of two family trusts established by them in 1984. The applicants sought to exclude one another from being beneficiaries of the respective trusts and include the other as a beneficiary instead. Both trusts were established for the benefit of their children and grandchildren, with slight variations in beneficiaries. The application was not opposed by any party, including the trustees, adult beneficiaries, and counsel for unborn grandchildren, all of whom supported the proposed changes. The court approved the variations, considering them beneficial for the trusts' future functioning and not detrimental to the interests of unborn grandchildren.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the proposed variations to the trusts would be in the best interest of the trusts and their beneficiaries, including unborn grandchildren. The court had to determine if the changes would be appropriate and beneficial for the trusts, considering the support from all relevant parties. Additionally, the court had to decide if the proposed changes would negatively impact the interests of any unborn grandchildren, as per the requirements of Section 64A of the Trustee Act 1956.

Justice Peters, in delivering the judgment, noted the unanimity of support for the proposed variations from all relevant parties, including the trustees, adult beneficiaries, and counsel for unborn grandchildren. The court considered these endorsements as strong indicators that the variations would not adversely affect the trusts' future interests. Given the consent from all parties and the benefits of the proposed changes, Justice Peters found it appropriate to approve the variations as requested. The court's decision was based on the premise that the changes would facilitate the trusts' smooth operation and would not harm the interests of unborn grandchildren.

The court made orders approving the variations to the trusts as requested by the applicants. The Gael Glover Family Trust would now exclude Mr. Glover and include Mrs. Glover as a beneficiary, and the Ian Glover Family Trust would exclude Mrs. Glover and include Mr. Glover as a beneficiary. This decision was based on the comprehensive support from all relevant parties and the court's assessment that the variations would be beneficial for the trusts' future administration.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.