Perpetual Trust Limited v Cooke - [2025] NZHC 1601

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2022-404-482

[2025] NZHC 1601

UNDER Part 18 of the High Court Rules

IN THE MATTER OF

AND

The Trusts Act 2019

IN THE MATTER OF

The Estate of Naomai Joan Cooke

BETWEEN

PERPETUAL TRUST LIMITED as

Executor and Trustee of the Estate of Naomai Joan Cooke

First Applicant

AND

PERPETUAL TRUST LIMITED as Trustee

of funds held for Brian John Cooke Second Applicant

AND

BRIAN JOHN COOKE

Respondent

Hearing: 21 March 2025

Appearances:

Further submissions and evidence completed:

N R Williams and R W Belcher for the applicants The respondent in person

5 June 2025

Judgment:

16 June 2025

JUDGMENT (NO.2) OF POWELL J

[Miscellaneous Issues]

This judgment was delivered by me on 16 June 2025 at 4.00 pm.
Pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

…………………..

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

PERPETUAL TRUST LIMITED v BRIAN JOHN COOKE [2025] NZHC 1601 [16 June 2025]

[1] On 5 July 2024 I issued my substantive judgment in these proceedings (the judgment).1 The judgment identified a range of matters requiring consequential decisions and set out a process to enable those to be determined.2

[2] No agreement was able to be reached between the parties on any of the outstanding matters identified. A further hearing ultimately took place in March 2025 and further submissions on the issues followed that hearing.

[3] This judgment addresses the matters outstanding as at the time of the hearing, specifically:

(a)Perpetual Guardian’s costs in relation to issues with the Red Beach property;3

(b)the arrangements for Mr Cooke to reoccupy the Wellsford property;4 and

(c)the overall reconciliation of the amounts held by Perpetual Guardian on behalf of Mrs Panhuis and Mr Cooke, including:

(i)accounting for the remaining 10 per cent of net sale proceeds for the Ōrewa property;5 and

(ii)detailing what costs Perpetual Guardian were entitled to deduct from the estate as a whole and/or Mr Cooke’s share of it.6

Perpetual Guardian’s costs in relation to issues with the Red Beach property

[4]Perpetual Guardian initially sought costs on the Red Beach issue totalling

$62,129.39. It was acknowledged that this figure did not represent the actual amounts spent in relation to the Red Beach issue. In the judgment I noted that while the

1      Perpetual Trust Ltd v Cooke [2024] NZHC 1779.
2      At [213]–[222].
3 At [147]–[153], [203]–[207], and [218].
4      At [202], [214], and [219]–[221].
5 At [213].
6      At [215]–[216].

reasonable and actual legal costs for Perpetual Guardian were appropriately payable out of Mr Cooke’s share of the estate:7

[218] … I am not satisfied that the current apportionment proposed by Perpetual Guardians fairly reflects the time and effort spent by either Perpetual Guardian or their lawyers on this issue which I consider clearly has been minor in the context of the issues between Perpetual Guardian and Mr Cooke. I therefore do not accept Perpetual Guardian’s current position that the costs attributable to the Red Beach property in any…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Perpetual Trust Limited v Cooke and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NZHC 1601
Decision Date: 16 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerns ongoing issues arising from the estate of Naomai Joan Cooke, with Perpetual Trust Limited acting both as executor and trustee, and Brian John Cooke as a beneficiary. The central disputes revolve around the costs associated with managing specific properties within the estate, the conditions under which Mr. Cooke can reoccupy the Wellsford property, and the reconciliation of funds held by Perpetual Trust on behalf of Mrs. Panhuis and Mr. Cooke. The High Court was tasked with determining the reasonable costs for managing the Red Beach property, setting conditions for Mr. Cooke's reoccupation of the Wellsford property, and reconciling the financial accounts of the estate.

The court addressed the matter of costs associated with the Red Beach property, reducing the initial claim from $62,129.39 to $37,277.63, acknowledging the minor involvement of the issue in the overall proceedings. Regarding the reoccupation of the Wellsford property, the court dismissed the draft conditions proposed by Perpetual Trust, opting instead for an independent property manager to oversee the property's maintenance and to conduct regular inspections. The court also mandated that $75,000 be set aside from Mr. Cooke's share of the estate to cover these costs. Lastly, the court confirmed the final reconciliation of funds held by Perpetual Trust, rejecting Mr. Cooke's challenges to the accuracy of the figures.

In summary, the court fixed the costs for the Red Beach property at $37,277.63, mandated the appointment of an independent property manager for the Wellsford property with a dedicated fund of $75,000 for its management, and confirmed the final reconciliation of the estate's finances.

Orders