Legal Research
Cases
Triezenberg v Mason

Triezenberg v Mason

Case [2025] NZHC 1918 15 July 2025

Trustee Duties

Best Interests of Beneficiaries

Indemnity of Costs

Strike-Out Application

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2025-404-000473

[2025] NZHC 1918

UNDER Rules 9.4(f) and 19.4A of the High Court Rules 2016 and the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court

IN THE MATTER OF

an application for Beddoe orders by VICKI ANN TRIEZENBERG and PAUL MORLEY

DODD as trustees of the MAMARI TRUST and MAMARI (No.2) TRUST

BETWEEN

VICKI ANN TRIEZENBERG

Applicant

AND

ALEXANDER CHARLES MASON

Respondent

Hearing: 17 June 2025

Appearances:

V Bruton KC and J Cundy for the Applicant G Thwaite for the Respondent

Judgment:

15 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF HARVEY J

This judgment is delivered by me on 15 July 2025 at 4 PM pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

…………………………………………….
Deputy Registrar

Counsel:
Vanessa Bruton KC, Auckland

Solicitors:
Jack Cundy, Auckland
Gregory J Thwaite, North Shore, Auckland

TRIEZENBERG v MASON [2025] NZHC 1918 [15 July 2025]

Introduction

[1] This is a long running family dispute about the control of two trusts and their assets — the Mamari Trust and the Mamari Trust (No 2) (the Trusts). There has already been a considerable amount of complex and costly litigation, and the relationship between Vicki Triezenberg and Paul Dodd (the Trustees) and Alexander Mason (the respondent) has largely disintegrated.1

[2] Mr Mason has brought new proceedings seeking the removal of the Trustees, the appointment of himself and a nominee as replacement trustees, the variation of the trust deeds to vest the power of appointment of trustees in himself, referral to arbitration, and the payment of costs and damages by the Trustees to the Mamari (No 2) Trust. Mr Mason also seeks summary judgment and interim relief. In response, the Trustees have filed this application for Beddoe orders relating to the medical examination of Mr Mason, the appointment of a litigation guardian, an application to strike out Mr Mason’s statement of claim, opposition to his application for summary judgment and interim relief, and indemnity for costs.

[3] During the hearing, I implored the parties to consider how the litigation has already consumed a significant amount of the Trusts’ property and suggested that a negotiated outcome would be strongly preferable. While it is necessary to determine the application for Beddoe orders, I reiterate that opportunities to resolve this proceeding outside the courts should not be ignored. They should be pursued despite the parties’ earlier unsuccessful attempts to do so. I revisit this topic at the end of this judgment after determining the substantive Beddoe orders application.

Background

[4] Mr Mason, an 89-year-old retired builder, married Wendy Cambie in 1956. They had three children, Michelle Richardson, Ms Triezenberg and Mark Mason. In

1 See Rothera v Rothera [2018] NZHC 375, [2018] NZFLR 324; Mason v Triezenberg [2019] NZFC 1021; Mason v Mason [2019] NZHC 3092; Triezenberg v Mason [2019] NZHC 14 [Removal decision]; Triezenberg v Mason [2019] NZHC 920; Triezenberg v Mason [2019] NZHC 2125; Mason v Triezenberg [2022] NZCA 138; Mason…

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 Triezenberg v Mason

Details

AGLC: Triezenberg v Mason [2025] NZHC 1918
Case: [2025] NZHC 1918
Decision Date: 15 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Triezenberg v Mason, Vicki Triezenberg and Paul Dodd, as trustees of the Mamari Trust and Mamari (No.2) Trust, applied for Beddoe orders in relation to their ongoing dispute with Alexander Mason over the control and distribution of trust assets. The court considered various issues, including whether Beddoe orders should be granted in light of the Trustees' potential self-interest, whether Mr Mason's cognitive capacity should be assessed, and whether the Trustees should oppose Mr Mason's application for summary judgment and interim orders.

The court found that opposition to Mr Mason's claims appeared to be in the best interests of the Trusts and beneficiaries. While the Trustees' actions may have some self-interest, the court found that the potential detriment to other beneficiaries if Mr Mason's claims were granted outweighed this. The court also found that Mr Mason should be given an opportunity to voluntarily obtain a medical assessment of his capacity to litigate, with the Trustees to apply for a litigation guardian if necessary. The Trustees were ordered to strike out Mr Mason's statement of claim and oppose his application for summary judgment and interim orders. The Trustees were granted indemnity for costs incurred in making various applications.

The court emphasised that a negotiated resolution between the parties would be preferable to continuing the costly litigation, which has already depleted a significant portion of the Trusts' assets. The court encouraged the parties to consider mediation to explore possible compromises that could end the litigation.

Orders