McGuire v Earl - [2020] NZHC 3083

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2020-409-278

[2020] NZHC 3083

UNDER the Trustee Act 1956

BETWEEN

CHRISTOPHER ALAN LESLIE McGUIRE

Applicant

AND

CHRISTOPHER KNOX EARL, ERROL MANNERING BARNES and GEOFFREY WILLIAM JAMES ROCHESTER BASHER

as trustees of the DENNIS PATRICK McGUIRE TRUST

Respondents

Hearing: 2 November 2020

Appearances:

J R Pullar and M P Davis for the Applicant

G A Cooper and M L Rhodes for the Respondents

Judgment:

20 November 2020

Reissued:

23 November 2020

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE LESTER

This judgment was delivered by me on 20 November 2020 at 3.00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar 20 November 2020

Note: Judgment re-issued to correct the surname of Mr Pullar in para [41] under the Slip Rule.

McGUIRE v EARL [2020] NZHC 3083 [20 November 2020]

[1] The applicant, Christopher McGuire (Christopher), applies for summary judgment seeking orders that the defendant trustees disclose the information listed below in relation to the Dennis Patrick McGuire Trust (the Trust) established by Christopher’s late father, Dennis Patrick McGuire (Dennis).

[2]Christopher seeks:

(i)statements of accounts;

(ii)copies of all Minutes and Resolutions;

(iii)any documents pertaining to any distributions;

(iv)all documents pertaining to any gifting or debt incurred; and

(v)bank statements for all bank accounts.

[3] The Trust was settled by Dennis on 19 December 2011. Dennis died on 17 October 2012. At the time of Dennis’ death, Christopher was 18 years old.

[4] Christopher is one of only two living discretionary beneficiaries of the Trust, the other being Christopher Knox Earl (Mr Earl), who is also one of the trustees. It is clear that Mr Earl was a close friend of the settlor (Dennis) – Mr Earl being described in the Trust Deed as “a close, lifelong friend and foster brother to the Settlor”.

[5] The evidence is, at least for the purposes of a summary judgment application, that Christopher’s relationship with his father was, to say the least, difficult.

[6] Affidavits filed by the trustees state that the relationship between Christopher and Dennis deteriorated significantly in the later stage of Dennis’ life. Dennis is reported as having told Mr Earl that Christopher had abused him and that he was not pleased with Christopher’s lifestyle which involved drug use.

[7] Mr Barnes’ evidence is that Christopher had a history of drug abuse and violence towards Dennis. Mr Barnes says that at one point he found Dennis with deep

bruising which Dennis reported had been caused by Christopher because Dennis had refused to give Christopher money for drugs. The evidence of Mr Basher is to a similar effect.

[8] As I will refer to later in this Judgment, both Mr Basher in his affidavit, and Mr Rhodes, counsel for the trustees, during his submissions, referred to what they called “Christopher’s propensity for violence”. That is notwithstanding there is no evidence of violence by Christopher since his father’s death over eight years ago.

Principles applicable to a request…

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 McGuire v Earl

Details

AGLC: McGuire v Earl [2020] NZHC 3083
Case: [2020] NZHC 3083
Decision Date: 20 November 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Christopher McGuire brought an application for summary judgment against the trustees of the Dennis Patrick McGuire Trust, seeking disclosure of various documents. The Trust was established by Dennis, Christopher's late father. The trustees, including Christopher Knox Earl, resisted the application, arguing that disclosure was unnecessary and that some of the documents were confidential. The court had to decide whether the trustees were required to disclose the requested information.

The court outlined the principles applicable to requests for information from trustees, emphasizing that trustees have an obligation to administer the trust in accordance with the trust deed and their duty to account to beneficiaries. The court also noted that the strongest case for disclosure would be a request from a close beneficiary for disclosure of the trust deed and the trust accounts, which are necessary to scrutinize the trustees' actions. The court held that the trustees' obligation of confidence did not permit them to resist the disclosure application, particularly given the inadequate treatment of the "Estate D McGuire Distributions" entry in the financial accounts.

The court found that the trustees' concerns about potential violence from Christopher were not well-founded, as there was no evidence of similar conduct by Christopher since the alleged incidents eight years prior. The court concluded that the trustees' concerns about confidentiality and the potential for an adverse reaction from Christopher did not outweigh the need for disclosure. The court also found that the trustees' resistance to disclosing documents concerning distributions was unjustified, given the inaccuracy of the financial statements.

The court ordered the trustees to provide full and comprehensive disclosure of the requested documents, including the Minutes and Resolutions, documents pertaining to distributions, gifting, or debt incurred, and bank statements for all bank accounts. The court granted leave for Christopher to apply if issues arise in respect of the extent of disclosure or any redactions made. Costs were reserved and would follow the event.

Orders