Miller v Cregten - [2020] NZHC 1262

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CIV-2017-488-137

[2020] NZHC 1262

IN THE MATTER of the Miller Family Trust

UNDER

Section 68 of the Trustee Act 1956

BETWEEN

KEVIN MARTIN MILLER and

CHANTELLE KIMBERLEY STEVENSON
Plaintiffs

AND

JOHN JOSEPH CREGTEN and

ADRIENNE MARY STONE as trustees of the MILLER FAMILY TRUST

Defendants

Hearing: 5 June 2020

Appearances:

A L Kula for the plaintiffs

C J R Baird for the defendants P J Magee for Beryl Miller

D M Shanahan as litigation guardian for minors

Judgment:

9 June 2020

Reissued:

10 June 2020

JUDGMENT OF PALMER J

This judgment was delivered by me on Tuesday 9 June 2020 at 11.00am.
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………………
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Counsel/Solicitors:
C J R Baird, Barrister, Auckland Carson Fox Legal, Auckland
Henderson Reeves Connell Rishworth, Whangārei Thomson Wilson, Whangārei

MILLER v CREGTEN [2020] NZHC 1262 [9 June 2020]

Summary

[1] The primary beneficiaries of a trust have agreed with the trustees on settlement of these proceedings. In general, the settlement involves the distribution of some funds to all three primary beneficiaries, the resettlement of a third of the trust funds on a new trust in favour of one primary beneficiary and her children, and the retirement of the current trustees in favour of the Public Trust. I approve the proposed settlement on the basis that it is implemented very promptly. I consider the value to some of the discretionary beneficiaries of being removed from a long-running dispute outweighs any potential but speculative financial detriment to them. I also recommend that the Public Trust, as the new trustee, should consider whether and how to exercise its discretion to settle new trusts on, or distribute the existing trust funds to, the remaining primary beneficiaries, as a matter of urgency.

What happened?

The people and the MFT

[2] On 25 May 1999, Mr Thomas (Tam) Miller settled a discretionary trust, the Miller Family Trust (MFT). The primary beneficiaries, other than Tam and his wife Mrs Trissie (Triss) Miller, were their son, Mr Kevin Miller, and Kevin’s two daughters, Ms Beryl Miller and Mrs Chantelle Stevenson.1 The children of Beryl and Chantelle are also discretionary beneficiaries. Triss and Tam were trustees until their deaths in July 2011 and August 2013 respectively. The other original trustee who is still a trustee is Mr John Cregten, whose parents were close friends of Triss and Tam. Mr Cregten was also executor of both estates. Since late 2015, Ms Adrienne Stone has also been a trustee.

[3] Tam made two memoranda of his wishes in relation to the MFT, in 1999 and in April 2013.2 Each memorandum states it is intended for guidance of the trustees but has no legal effect and “is not intended in any way to fetter the discretionary powers vested in you under the Deed”.3 Among other things, Tam stated in each memorandum that:

1 Given the family context, and to avoid confusion…

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 Miller v Cregten

Details

AGLC: Miller v Cregten [2020] NZHC 1262
Case: [2020] NZHC 1262
Decision Date: 9 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand presided over a case involving the Miller Family Trust (MFT) where the primary beneficiaries, Kevin Martin Miller and Chantelle Kimberley Stevenson, sought to resolve their disputes with the trustees, John Joseph Cregten and Adrienne Mary Stone. The MFT was established by Tam Miller in 1999 and included specific wishes regarding the beneficiaries and the distribution of the trust funds. Over time, disputes arose between the beneficiaries and the trustees, leading to litigation. The parties eventually negotiated a settlement, which involved the partial resettlement of the MFT assets, distribution of funds to the primary beneficiaries, and the retirement of the current trustees in favor of the Public Trust.

The legal issues before the court were whether the proposed settlement of the MFT was fair and in the best interests of all beneficiaries, particularly the minor beneficiaries, and whether the court should approve the settlement. The court needed to consider the trustees' discretion under the Trustee Act 1956, the value of resolving long-standing disputes, and the potential detriment to the minor beneficiaries.

The court found that the proposed settlement was fair and in the best interests of the beneficiaries. The court approved the settlement based on the clear value to Beryl and her children of being removed from the long-running disputes about the MFT. The court also observed that the current trustees may have been too rigid in their interpretation of Tam's wishes, and it recommended that the Public Trust consider the discretion to settle new trusts on Kevin and Chantelle or distribute trust funds to them as a matter of urgency.

The final orders of the court were to approve the proposed settlement, subject to its implementation being done promptly. The court also recommended that the Public Trust consider exercising its discretion regarding the settlement of new trusts on Kevin and Chantelle or distributing trust funds to them, in order to avoid potential unfairness to Beryl and her children compared with Chantelle and her children.

Orders