Perpetual Trust Limited v Perpetual Trust Limited

[2025] NZHC 2816

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2022-404-482

[2025] NZHC 2816

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:	11 September 2025
Appearances:	R W Belcher for the applicants The respondent in person
Judgment:	26 September 2025

JUDGMENT (NO.3) OF POWELL J

[Application for partial stay of execution of decision pending appeal]

This judgment was delivered by me on 26 September 2025 at 12.00 pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

……………

Registrar-Deputy Registrar

PERPETUAL TRUST LIMITED as Executor and Trustee of the Estate of Naomai Joan Cooke v PERPETUAL TRUST LIMITED as Trustee of funds held for Brian John Cooke [2025] NZHC 2816 [26 September 2025]

[1]        The applicants (Perpetual Guardian) seek a partial stay of execution pending appeal.

[2]        The application follows the issue of my two judgments in these proceedings,1 and their subsequent appeal by Perpetual Guardian. It is understood that the appeal has been heard, and the Court of Appeal has reserved its judgment.

[3]        Somewhat unusually, the application has not come about as a result of any enforcement action taken by the respondent Mr Cooke. On the contrary, it is the result of a recognition that there is otherwise no good reason for Perpetual Guardian not to pay out the amounts owing to Mr Cooke calculated in accordance with the judgments.

[4]        Somewhat generously, Mr Cooke confirmed at the hearing of the application that he did not oppose a stay pending the decision of the Court of Appeal as he had no immediate need for additional money. Had this not been the position, I would not have been satisfied that there is any need for a partial stay on the terms sought by Perpetual Guardian. In addition, I note that since the hearing Perpetual Guardian have confirmed that should Mr Cooke request it, Perpetual Guardian is prepared to make a further interim distribution to him of $50,000, which I consider to be appropriate in the context of the litigation to date. In the circumstances, I make the order as sought and reserve leave for the parties to return to the Court should any issue arise with regard to the additional interim payment in the event it is requested by Mr Cooke.

[5]There is no issue as to costs.

Powell J

1      Perpetual Trust Limited v Cooke [2024] NZHC 1779 and; Perpetual Trust Limited v Cooke (No.2) [2025] NZHC 1601.