Green v Green - [2017] NZHC 1044

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2015-404-2024 [2017] NZHC 1044

IN THE MATTER
of the Hugh Green Trust and the Hugh

Green Property Trust

UNDER

Part 18 of the High Court Rules and
Section 51 of the Trustee Act 1956

BETWEEN

MOIRA ELLEN GREEN First Plaintiff

JOHN PATRICK GREEN Second Plaintiff

FRANCES KATHLEEN GREEN Third Plaintiff

AND

MARYANNE GREEN (as trustee of the Hugh Green Trust and the Hugh Green Property Trust)

Defendant Continued over the page ….

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

R B Lange and J D Ryan for Moira, John and Frances Green
V Bruton QC, for Maryanne Green
S Hunter and S Ambler for A Piper
A Ross and N Kusel for D Randell and C Darlow
P McKendrick for Hugh, James, Brianna and Daniel Green and
Bridget and Samuel Reynolds

A Bell for Gerard and Regan Green, D J Chisholm QC for Eamonn Green

S Mills QC for Jack, Caitlin and Emily Green, together with
any future natural born or adopted children and "remoter issue".

Judgment:

19 May 2017

JUDGMENT OF MUIR J

This judgment was delivered by me on Friday 19 May 2017 at 10.00 am Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the
High court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date:…………………………

GREEN v GREEN [2017] NZHC 1044 [19 May 2017]

ALICE PIPER Party Served

DAVID HARDING RANDELL, CHRISTOPHER ROBERT DARLOW AND MARYANNE GREEN
Parties Served

HUGH GREEN, JAMES GREEN, BRIANNA GREEN, DANIEL GREEN, BRIDGET REYNOLDS AND SAMUEL REYNOLDS
Parties Served

GERARD JOSEPH BUCKLEY GREEN, REGAN GREEN, JACK GREEN, CAITLIN GREEN AND EMILY GREEN
Parties Served

EAMONN GREEN Party Served

CIV-2013-404-3676

IN THE MATTER of the ESTATE OF HUGH GREEN, and the grant of probate of a will dated 26 April 2012 by the High Court at Auckland under CIV-
2012-404-004791 on 21 August 2012

UNDER Part 27 and Rule 27.34 of the High Court
Rules

BETWEEN MARYANNE GREEN Plaintiff
ANDMICHAEL FISHER, JOHN PATRICK GREEN, FRANCES KATHLEEN GREEN and ROBERT NAREV
Defendants

CIV-2013-404-4840

IN THE MATTER of The Hugh Green Trust and the Hugh Green

Property Trust

UNDER Part 18 of the High Court Rules and Section
51 of the Trustee Act 1956

BETWEEN MARYANNE GREEN Plaintiff
ANDJOHN PATRICK GREEN First Defendant
MICHAEL JOHN FISHER Second Defendant
JOHN PATRICK GREEN, MICHAEL JOHN FISHER, FRANCES KATHLEEN GREEN and JOHN JAMES GOSNEY (as presently named trustees of a trust known as the Hugh Green Trust, settled by deed dated
7 June 1968) Third Defendants
JOHN PATRICK GREEN, MICHAEL JOHN FISHER, FRANCES KATHLEEN GREEN and JOHN JAMES GOSNEY (as presently named trustees of a trust known as the Hugh Green Property Trust, settled by deed dated
20 March 1989) Fourth Defendants

Introduction

[1] On 7 October 2016 the Court of Appeal delivered its decision in the appeal by John Patrick Green and others against the High Court decision of Winkelmann J.1

[2] Paragraphs [154] and [155] of that decision were in terms:

[154] Hugh Green was a remarkable man who left his family a remarkable legacy. He was…

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 Green v Green

Details

AGLC: Green v Green [2017] NZHC 1044
Case: [2017] NZHC 1044
Decision Date: 19 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Green v Green involves a complex dispute over the administration and distribution of assets from the Hugh Green Trust and the Hugh Green Property Trust. The primary parties involved are Moira Ellen Green, John Patrick Green, Frances Kathleen Green, and Maryanne Green, who acts as trustee of both trusts. The legal issues before the court centered on the proposed settlement agreement reached by the beneficiaries, which sought to resolve ongoing litigation and distribute the trust assets in a manner consistent with Hugh Green's intentions. The court had to determine whether the settlement was in the best interests of all beneficiaries, including minors, future, and unknown beneficiaries, and whether the trustees had the appropriate authority to implement the settlement.

The court's reasoning focused on the significant benefits of the settlement in terms of ending the protracted and costly litigation, achieving unity within the family, and honoring Hugh Green's charitable intentions. The court noted the unanimous agreement among adult beneficiaries and the discretionary powers held by the trustees to manage the trusts' assets. The court also considered the speculative nature of any potential detriment to minor, future, or unknown beneficiaries, given the substantial corpus of the trusts and the trustees' wide-ranging powers. The court concluded that the settlement would bring finality to the disputes and was in the overall welfare of the family. Consequently, the court approved the settlement and the associated variations to the trust deeds, ordered the resignation of Maryanne Green as trustee, and appointed new trustees as per the settlement agreement. The court also ordered that the proceedings be discontinued and directed that the trust file remain confidential.

Orders