Guest v Warner - [2018] NZHC 666

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI TERENGA PARĀOA ROHE

CIV-2015-488-000183

[2018] NZHC 666

BETWEEN
JOANNE GUEST

First Plaintiff

GUEST TRUSTEE LIMITED
Second Plaintiff

MELISSA GUEST
Third Plaintiff

AND

JULIE ANNE WARNER

Defendant

Hearing: 26-28 February, 1-2 March 2018

Appearances:

C Kelly and G R Mathieson for the Plaintiffs C M Webster and J C Waugh for the Defendant J G Ross A N Guest

Judgment:

12 April 2018

JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

This judgment is delivered by me on 12 April 2018 at 4.30 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

.....................................................
Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Greg Kelly Law Limited, Wellington (Plaintiff) G Mathieson, Wellington (Plaintiff)
Devonport Law Limited, Auckland (for Defendant) J R Ross, Barrister, Whangarei

GUEST & ORS v WARNER [2018] NZHC 666 [12 April 2018]

Introduction

[1] This judgment determines issues relating to the trusteeship of the Martin and Anne Guest Family Trust (the “M&A Family Trust”). This proceeding is to determine who are, or should be, the M&A Family Trust’s trustees.

[2] There are other proceedings between the parties relating to the quantification of the M&A Family Trust’s assets, and to their distribution to beneficiaries. A substantial amount of the evidence in this proceeding, led to explain or criticise various conduct relied on in this proceeding, will likely be determinative of those other proceedings. For that reason, except as necessary to determine this proceeding, I do not more expansively consider the factual background.

Relevant background

[3] William John Guest (“Bill”) and Nicholas Martin Guest (“Martin”) are brothers. In an informal partnership from 1976 onwards, they conducted farming and farm contracting businesses in Te Kopuru, near Dargaville in Northland’s Kaipara district. Bill was married to Glenis Doreen Guest (“Glenis”); Martin to Mary Anne Guest (“Anne Guest”). The partnership informally leased land from the M&A Family Trust, the Bill and Glenis Guest Family Trust (the “B&G Family Trust”), Bill, Martin, and Anne Guest.

[4] By deed of 22 May 1998, an accountant, Peter Robert Crawford, had settled the M&A Family Trust with a gift of $10 on trust, to make provision for Martin and Anne Guest “and their children and grandchildren and any other beneficiaries added pursuant to the provisions of this deed”. The three of them were the M&A Family Trust’s initial trustees, to hold the $10, together with whatever property was transferred to them or otherwise acquired, on such trust.

[5] Martin died on 15 August 2012. Anne Guest was executor of Martin’s will. The businesses continued under a new partnership between Bill and the M&A Family Trust until Bill died on 23 July 2016, bringing that partnership also to an end. Anne Guest earlier died on 29 February 2016.

[6] Martin and Anne Guest’s children are Aaron, Joanne, Melissa, and Phillip. The evidence is unclear on their grandchildren; at least Aaron also has children, and Joanne was pregnant at…

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 Guest v Warner

Details

AGLC: Guest v Warner [2018] NZHC 666
Case: [2018] NZHC 666
Decision Date: 12 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Guest v Warner was brought to determine the rightful trustees of the Martin and Anne Guest Family Trust. The primary dispute involved the removal of Anne Warner as a trustee and the appointment of new trustees. The court had to decide whether the removal of Anne Warner was valid and whether new trustees should be appointed in her place. The court also had to determine the appropriate criteria for appointing new trustees, considering factors such as the settlors' intentions, neutrality between beneficiaries, and the promotion of the trust's purposes.

The court found that the removal of Anne Warner was valid due to the breakdown in family relations and the trustees' apparent partiality towards certain beneficiaries. The court held that it was expedient to appoint new trustees to ensure the proper administration of the trust and the protection of its assets. The court considered the settlors' intentions, the need for neutrality between beneficiaries, and the promotion of the trust's purposes in appointing a new trustee. The court decided that a professional trustee, specifically Chris Darlow, would be best suited for the role due to his experience and reputation.

The court ordered the appointment of Chris Darlow as the new trustee of the Martin and Anne Guest Family Trust and directed the vesting of specified property in his name. The court also decided that each party should bear their own costs in the proceeding, as no party could claim to be the successful party, and the costs should not be borne by the trust. The court reserved the right to determine costs if the parties could not agree on them.

Orders