Matchitt v Matchitt - [2025] NZHC 1991

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CIV-2025-441-69

[2025] NZHC 1991

UNDER ss 112 and 114 of the Trusts Act 2019

IN THE MATTER OF

the Kia Manaaki Trust

BETWEEN

MARITA LEE MATCHITT

Applicant

AND

VERNON LEWIS MATCHITT, MAIA MATCHITT, and

JOANNE MARAMA MATCHITT as

trustees of the Kia Manaaki Trust First Respondents

ANDREW MARK GALLIE as independent trustee of the Kia Manaaki Trust

Second Respondent

On the papers:

Counsel:

E R Anderson for Applicant

Judgment:

18 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF GRAU J

[Without notice application to commence proceeding by originating application]

[1] The applicant, Marita Matchitt, applies to the Court for orders to remove the respondents, Vernon Matchitt, Maia Matchitt, Joanne Matchitt and Andrew Gallie, as trustees of the Kia Manaaki Trust (the Trust) and replace them with a professional trustee and three other trustees who are said to have the necessary knowledge and connections to manage the Trust. Marita seeks permission to commence this proceeding by way of originating application without notice to any other party.

MATCHITT v MATCHITT [2025] NZHC 1991 [18 July 2025]

Background

[2] Marita’s father, Paratene Temokopuorongo Matchitt (Para), was a renowned Māori artist who passed away in July 2021. His archive of works and his property in Napier (known as the Shed) are the principal assets of his estate.

[3] Marita is the eldest child of Para. She is an executor of Para’s estate and is a trustee of the Trust.

[4] The first respondents—Vernon, Maia, and Joanne—are the remaining living children of Para and are also trustees of the Trust. Maia is also an executor of Para’s estate. The second respondent, Andrew Gallie, was Para’s solicitor, and he is the independent trustee of the Trust.

[5] The Trust was established in December 2020 by Para and Andrew. Marita and Andrew were named as trustees. Marita’s siblings were originally named as discretionary beneficiaries and were then added as trustees. Marita believes her father did so in an effort to bring the siblings together.

[6] Marita’s understanding of the purpose of the Trust is that Para wanted a papakāinga built on whānau land to house and exhibit a collection of his works and preserve his legacy. He also wanted a place for whānau, current and future, as well as a space that could be used for workshops and art exhibitions. Marita understood that Para wanted the Trust to be in place for future generations, and the wider community.

[7] Unfortunately it appears that Marita and the other trustees had different visions for the Trust. They were unable to agree on what to do with the Shed, which is in a state of disrepair. Artworks are stored there, risking damage to them. Meeting times were another source of dispute. Marita considers that the other trustees did not provide her with information and made majority decisions, contrary to the Trust Deed, including a decision to remove her as a trustee. Marita says that, even after her…

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 Matchitt v Matchitt

Details

AGLC: Matchitt v Matchitt [2025] NZHC 1991
Case: [2025] NZHC 1991
Decision Date: 18 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Marita Lee Matchitt, an applicant, seeks to remove Vernon Lewis Matchitt, Maia Matchitt, Joanne Marama Matchitt, and Andrew Mark Gallie as trustees of the Kia Manaaki Trust, and replace them with other trustees she believes are better suited to manage the Trust. The Trust, established by Paratene Temokopuorongo Matchitt, holds his estate's principal assets, including his archive of works and property in Napier. Marita, Para's eldest child, is also an executor of his estate and a trustee of the Trust. The other respondents are Para's remaining children and his former solicitor, who was appointed as an independent trustee. Marita believes the Trust has become dysfunctional, and its purpose is not being fulfilled due to disagreements among the trustees, particularly regarding the management of the property in Napier and the lack of a plan for the Trust's future. Marita has applied to the Court to remove the current trustees and replace them under sections 112 and 114 of the Trusts Act 2019, seeking permission to commence the proceeding by way of an originating application without notice to any other party.

The Court must determine whether the application is suitable to commence by way of an originating application, given that the application for leave to proceed via such procedure has been made without notice. The Court considered whether the exchange of statements of claim and defence were needed, whether interlocutory procedures were required, whether the application was straightforward, and whether it involved multiple parties. The Court found that the factual and legal issues to be determined were confined and could be addressed effectively by way of an originating application. The issue was a relatively straightforward one and involved the application of the provisions in the Trusts Act. The Court also noted that there was a limited number of parties, and there was no need for cross-examination or numerous interlocutory procedures.

The Court granted leave for the proceedings to be dealt with as an originating application under Part 19 of the High Court Rules 2016. The applicant was to serve the originating application and supporting documents, together with the judgment, promptly on the respondents. The respondents were to file any opposition to the proceedings, together with any affidavit evidence in support, within 15 working days of receiving the originating application, supporting documents, and the judgment. The parties were to appear in the Judge's Chambers List on 18 August 2025 for further directions, with a view to setting down a date for hearing and other necessary timetabling. Should that date be unsuitable, the parties were to liaise with each other and the registry to obtain a suitable date.

Orders