White v White - [2025] NZHC 1557

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CIV-2025-441-014

[2025] NZHC 1557

UNDER Part 18 of the High Court Rules 2016

IN THE MATTER OF

an application under the Trusts Act 2019

BETWEEN

JEREMY PHILIP WHITE

Plaintiff

AND

GREGORY PETER WHITE

First Defendant

AND

STEPHEN PETER LUNN

Second Defendant

Hearing: 12 June 2025

Appearances:

D M Kerr for Plaintiff

Judgment:

16 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

Introduction

[1] The plaintiff seeks the removal of one or, alternatively, all of the trustees of the PG White Childrens Trust (the Trust) under Part 18 of the High Court Rules 2016 and the Trusts Act 2019 (the Act). The particular orders sought are:

(a)An order under s 112 of the Act removing Gregory White (the first defendant) as a trustee of the Trust.

(b)Alternatively, an order under s 112 of the Act removing all current trustees of the Trust and appointing the Public Trust (or such other

WHITE v WHITE [2025] NZHC 1557 [16 June 2025]

trustee as the Court thinks fit) as replacement trustee under s 114 of the Act.

(c)An order vesting the property of the Trust in the continuing or replacement trustee(s) pursuant to s 116 of the Act.

(d)Costs against the first defendant personally or, in the alternative, costs to be met from the assets of the Trust.

[2] On 24 February 2025, Justice La Hood directed the proceeding be served on the first and second defendant, and the Public Trust. Neither defendant has filed or served a statement of defence. The plaintiff has now applied for the proceeding to be dealt with by way of formal proof and seeks judgment by default pursuant to r 15.9 of the High Court Rules.

Background

[3] The plaintiff and the first defendant are both trustees and final beneficiaries of the Trust. The first defendant resides in Australia. Stephen Lunn (the second defendant) was the late P G White’s lawyer and is a trustee of the Trust. The plaintiff and first defendant are the only children of the late P G White, the settlor of the Trust.

[4] The Trust was settled by way of deed of trust dated 16 June 2015 (Trust Deed). The Trust assets include a farm property at Pirau Road, Fernhill (Farm) and a lifestyle block adjacent to the Farm (House Block).

[5] The discretionary beneficiaries of the Trust include the plaintiff, the first defendant and their respective issue, any trust and/or company in which they hold a beneficial interest, and any charitable entity.

[6] The plaintiff and the first defendant agreed to distribute the assets of the Trust equally between them in their capacity as final beneficiaries of the Trust. The distribution would occur when the subdivision of the farmland, of which the Farm was a part, was complete. The second defendant supported that proposition.

[7] With the agreement of the first defendant subdivision of the farmland commenced and the plaintiff obtained a mortgage from Heartland bank…

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 White v White

Details

AGLC: White v White [2025] NZHC 1557
Case: [2025] NZHC 1557
Decision Date: 16 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of White v White involves a dispute over the administration and distribution of assets of the PG White Childrens Trust. The plaintiff, Jeremy Philip White, is seeking the removal of one or all of the trustees of the Trust, specifically targeting Gregory Peter White, the first defendant, and potentially Stephen Peter Lunn, the second defendant. The case was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Napier Registry, and the judgment was delivered by Justice Churchman on 16 June 2025.

The legal issues before the court were whether the first defendant had breached his fiduciary duties as a trustee, and if so, whether it was necessary and desirable to remove him as a trustee under the Trusts Act 2019. The plaintiff argued that the first defendant had failed to communicate and cooperate with the other trustees, thereby obstructing the sale of the trust property and the distribution of its assets. The plaintiff also claimed that the first defendant's lack of cooperation had caused the trust to become inoperable, including the risk of bank accounts being closed and the inability to receive rental income or pay taxes.

Justice Churchman found that the plaintiff had proven on the balance of probabilities that the first defendant had indeed breached his duties as a trustee by refusing to participate in the management and administration of the Trust. The court accepted the plaintiff's submissions that the first defendant's lack of communication had prevented the trustees from finalising the sale of the Farm and making effective decisions on behalf of the Trust. The court was satisfied that it was necessary and desirable to remove the first defendant as a trustee to facilitate the administration of the trust and to allow the remaining trustees to complete the distribution of the trust assets.

The court made several orders, including the removal of Gregory White as a trustee, the vesting of the trust property in the remaining trustees, and an award of costs against the first defendant. The final orders of the court were that Gregory White be removed as a trustee, the property of the Trust be vested in the remaining trustees, and costs be awarded against the first defendant on a Category 2B basis together with necessary disbursements.

Orders