Sangster v Sangster

[2025] NZHC 2579

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2025-404-2442

[2025] NZHC 2579

UNDER

the Trusts Act 2019

IN THE MATTER

of an application for appointment of new trustees

BETWEEN

JOHN ALEXANDER SANGSTER

First Applicant

CHARLOTTE LOUISE SANGSTER and KARL ALEXANDER SANGSTER

Second Applicants

AND

ANNE MARIE SANGSTER

First Respondent

ANDREW D CHRISTIE and NICHOLAS KENNETH FISHER

Second Respondents

Hearing:	(On the papers)
Judgment:	5 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

This judgment was delivered by me on 5 September 2025 at 3.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors:           Holmden Horrocks, Auckland

SANGSTER v SANGSTER [2025] NZHC 2579 [5 September 2025]

[1]The applicants seek orders:

(a)granting leave to commence the proceedings by way of originating application;

(b)dispensing with service on and representation of the first respondent; and

(c)under the Trusts Act 2019 removing the second respondents as trustees of the Sangster Family Trust, appointing the second applicants as trustees in their place, and vesting in the second applicants properties at Epsom and Russell.

[2]        The Sangster Family Trust was established on 10 November 1995. The first applicant and first respondent are appointors. The second applicants are the children of the first applicant and first respondent and are final beneficiaries of the Trust.

[3]        The parties wish and agree that the second respondents be removed as trustees of the Trust and that the second applicants be appointed as trustees in their place.

[4]        However, unfortunately, the first respondent has been diagnosed with dementia. As a result and because of her incapacity the order is sought under the Trusts Act for the appointment of new trustees.

[5]        Having regard to the evidence before the Court I am satisfied that there would be no point or purpose in serving the proceedings upon the first respondent nor any need to appoint a litigation guardian for the purposes of this proceeding. Further, given the consent of all relevant parties (apart from the first respondent who is not in a position to consent) I accept that it is appropriate that leave be granted to commence proceedings by way of originating application.

[6]        The only other interested parties, apart from those named as parties, are Mr Karl Sangster’s wife and two children, who have filed affidavits confirming their consents to the proposed orders sought. The existing trustees have also sworn affidavits consenting to the orders sought.

[7]        Section 112 of the Trusts Act applies to the current situation. I accept that the first respondent’s dementia renders her entirely unable to participate in any meaningful way in any decision making regarding the Trust.

[8]        Accordingly I approve orders in accordance with the draft filed, including the orders under s 116 of the Trusts Act vesting in the second applicants (as the new trustees) the interests currently held by the second respondents in the two properties described in the application.

Venning J