Stratford v Moses - [2022] NZHC 2191

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TIMARU REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE TIHI-O-MARU ROHE

CIV-2021-476-40

[2022] NZHC 2191

UNDER the Trusts Act 2019

IN THE MATTER

of the Stratford Investment Trust

BETWEEN

BRIAN GEORGE STRATFORD

Plaintiff

AND

JULIET MOSES, DAVID VANCE AND LYNN STRATFORD, AS TRUSTEES OF THE STRATFORD INVESTMENT TRUST

First Defendants

JULIET MOSES
Second Defendant

LYNN STRATFORD

Third Defendant

Hearing: (Dealt with on the papers)

Counsel:

D A T Chambers QC and M M S Gray for Plaintiff

P J Hunt and D P Turnbull for First-named First Defendant and Second Defendant

J W A Johnson, J I Taylor for Third-Named First Defendant and Third Defendant – Lynn Stratford

J P Bell-Connell for David Vance
I T K T R F Hikaka for Haidee Stratford and Amanda Johnston Andrea Sutherland – Self Represented

Judgment:

30 August 2022

JUDGMENT OF EATON J

(In Relation to an Application Under s 133 Trusts Act 2019 and Associated Procedural Orders)

STRATFORD v MOSES [2022] NZHC 2191 [30 August 2022]

Background

[1] The background to this proceeding is set out in my judgment of 22 June 2022, where I recorded this proceeding is the result of the separation of Brian and Lynn Stratford after 44 years of marriage and of running successful farming operations together.1 As at the time of my judgment, in which I declined Brian’s application for interim relief, the parties had not achieved a division of their relationship property assets or the assets in the Stratford Investment Trust and the Stratford Family Trust (the Trusts) settled by them.

[2] Lynn and Brian have now reached an agreement in relation to the separation of their relationship property and also as to the re-distribution of assets held in the Trusts. As those Trusts were for the benefit of Lynn, Brian, their children and grandchildren, Lynn and Brian’s three daughters have been involved in that process. Lynn and Brian’s grandchildren, who are all minors, have not been represented in that process other than informally through their parents’ involvement.

[3] With Brian and Lynn having reached an agreement endorsed by their daughters, the substantive order the parties now seek is pursuant to s 133 of the Trusts Act 2019 (the Act), which provides:

133 Trustee may apply to court for directions

(1)A trustee may apply to the court for directions about—

(a)the trust property; or

(b)the exercise of any power or performance of any function by the trustee.

(2)The application must be served, in accordance with the rules of court, on each person interested in the application or any of them as the court thinks fit.

(3)On an application under this section, the court may give any direction it thinks fit.

(4)This section does not restrict the availability of alternative proceedings within the court’s jurisdiction, including a declaration interpreting the terms of the trust.

1 Stratford v Moses [2022] NZHC 1463.

[4] The order is sought to give the Court’s blessing to the trustees’ proposed decision.2 The Court’s blessing…

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 Stratford v Moses

Details

AGLC: Stratford v Moses [2022] NZHC 2191
Case: [2022] NZHC 2191
Decision Date: 30 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Stratford v Moses involved a dispute over the distribution of assets in the Stratford Investment Trust, following the separation of Brian and Lynn Stratford. The primary legal issue was whether the court should endorse the trustees' proposed decision to distribute the trust assets, as per section 133 of the Trusts Act 2019. The court needed to determine whether the trustees had formed an opinion that a reasonable body of trustees could arrive at and whether there was any conflict of interest that would prevent the court from endorsing the trustees' decision.

The court found that the trustees had indeed formed the opinion they sought to have endorsed and that their opinion was one that a reasonable body of trustees could have arrived at. Although there was a conflict of interest between Brian and Lynn and within the family, the court determined that the essentially equal division of assets between the divided family mitigated any potential prejudice. The court also noted the general consensus between the trustees and the beneficiaries, which lessened the significance of the potential for depriving beneficiaries of their opportunity to allege a breach of trust. Consequently, the court granted the substantive orders sought by the parties, directing the trustees to enter into the Deed of Family Arrangement and approving the trustees' entry into the Deed on behalf of the Minor Beneficiaries.

The final orders included joining additional parties to the proceeding, abridging the time for the hearing of the application, and directing the trustees to enter into any transactions necessary to give effect to the settlement. The court also recorded the Adult Beneficiaries' consent to the proposed settlement and directed that access to the Court file for this proceeding shall not be granted without first hearing from the parties.

Orders