Slater v Slater - [2018] NZHC 1766

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CIV-2017-419-0361

[2018] NZHC 1766

BETWEEN
KATE JULIA MOLLY SLATER

Plaintiff

AND

BRETT MURRAY SLATER

Defendant

Hearing: 30 May 2018

Appearances:

N Levy for the Plaintiff

D J Taylor for the Defendant

Judgment:

17 July 2018

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE SMITH

This judgment was delivered by me on 17 July 2018 at 12.30pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors / Counsel:
Rachael Dewar Law, Wellington N Levy, Wellington

Bogers Scott and Shortland, Hamilton D J Taylor, Hamilton

SLATER v SLATER [2018] NZHC 1766 [17 July 2018]

Introduction

[1] The plaintiff (Ms Slater) is the daughter of the defendant (Mr Slater). She is now 21 years old.

[2] In this proceeding, Ms Slater applied for an order under s 68 of the Trustee Act 1956 (the Act), directing Mr Slater to take all necessary steps to transfer to her a share portfolio, reckoned to be worth approximately $285,000, held (in the name of Mr Slater and his ex-wife, Ms Susan Kenrick) by Craig's Investment Partners (Craig's). Ms Slater contended that the share portfolio was held on trust for her, and that, having reached the age of majority, she was entitled to call for the shares to be transferred to her, thus bringing the trust to an end. Ms Kenrick agreed to transfer the shares, but Mr Slater did not agree.

[3] Because she believed that Mr Slater had no defence to the claim, Ms Slater applied for summary judgment on her claim, and the summary judgment application came before me for a defended hearing on 30 May 2018. After hearing argument from counsel I reserved my decision, but counsel have since advised that the parties have reached a settlement under which Mr Slater has agreed to transfer the share portfolio to Ms Slater, subject to a sum of money being retained to cover his costs to date. The parties have not been able to agree on costs, however, and the Court is asked to give judgment on costs. I now give judgment on the parties' respective costs claims.

[4] An important issue in determining Mr Slater's costs claim will be whether he has acted reasonably in the dispute. For that reason, it is necessary to set out the nature of the dispute and the positions taken by the parties.

[5] Ms Slater says that at various times in her childhood Mr Slater and her mother, Ms Kenrick, purchased shares and held those shares for her in a Craig's account styled "Ms Susan Mary Kenrick & Mr Brett Murray Slater (o/a Miss Kate Julia Slater)".

[6] When she came of age in 2017, Ms Slater wanted to have the share portfolio transferred to herself. Mr Slater expressed concerns about the need for further inquiry into what he contended were missing assets of the trust (allegedly misappropriated by Ms Kenrick), and the possibility that there may have been intermingling of the…

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 Slater v Slater

Details

AGLC: Slater v Slater [2018] NZHC 1766
Case: [2018] NZHC 1766
Decision Date: 17 July 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Slater v Slater involved a claim by Ms Slater, the daughter of Mr Slater, for the transfer of a share portfolio worth approximately $285,000 held by Craig's Investment Partners in the names of Mr Slater and his ex-wife, Ms Susan Kenrick. Ms Slater argued that the share portfolio was held on trust for her and that she was entitled to have the shares transferred to her upon reaching the age of majority. Mr Slater opposed the claim, arguing that the trust had not been properly administered and that further financial inquiries were necessary to ascertain the extent of any misappropriation of trust funds by Ms Kenrick. The primary issue before the court was whether Mr Slater had acted reasonably in opposing the transfer of the share portfolio to Ms Slater.

The court found that while it was reasonable for Mr Slater to seek some clarification and protection regarding the trust's assets and potential liabilities, his opposition to the transfer of the share portfolio was not reasonable once Ms Slater had offered to indemnify him. The court concluded that Mr Slater could have reasonably incurred up to $5,000 in legal expenses to seek advice on the form of indemnity offered by Ms Slater. However, the expenses incurred in opposing the summary judgment application were not reasonable.

Regarding the costs application, the court found that Ms Slater was entitled to costs on a 2B basis, amounting to $2,000 plus disbursements. The court ordered that $15,000 of the retained $20,000 be paid to Ms Slater, $5,000 be reimbursed to Mr Slater for reasonable expenses, and the remaining $2,000 plus disbursements be awarded to Ms Slater as costs of the proceeding. The parties were asked to advise the court on whether any further orders or directions were necessary or if the proceeding could be dismissed.

Orders