Legal Research
Cases
William Manukau Compensation Trust

William Manukau Compensation Trust

Case [2025] NZHC 2706 18 September 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CIV-2025-419-0257

[2025] NZHC 2706

UNDER the Trusts Act 2019

IN THE MATTER

of an application for orders varying the terms of the William Manukau Compensation Trust

BY

JOAN LUCILLE TAPU and REDOUBT

TRUSTEES XXII LIMITED as trustees of the WILLIAM MANUKAU COMPENSATION TRUST

Applicants

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

JKH Hooper for applicants

Date of judgment:

18 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 18 September 2025 at 3.30pm.
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Edmonds Judd, Te Awamutu

RE WILLIAM MANUKAU COMPENSATION TRUST [2025] NZHC 2706 [18 September 2025]

[1] I have the trustees’ 12 August 2025 without notice applications for permission to commence proceedings by originating application and then for approval of a variation of trust under ss 122 and 124 of the Trusts Act 2019, respectively being by unanimous consent of beneficiaries or on behalf of beneficiaries who lack capacity.

Background

[2] The trust at issue is of a fund established in 1973 for the benefit of William Wilson Manukau, also known as Wiremu Wirihana Manukau, from settlement of claims arising from Mr Manukau’s childhood traumatic brain injury, leaving him intellectually impaired and now without capacity. The fund presently amounts to some $118,000 administered by the trustees.

[3] The terms of the trust, settled by this Court’s 1 August 1973 orders (and varied on 20 July 1978),1 make no provision for what is to occur in the event of Mr Manukau’s death. The 1973 settlement was for the fund’s disposition to Mr Manukau when he turned 20 years old; the 1978 variation continued the trust thereafter until further order of this Court.

[4] The trustees propose variation, on Mr Manukau’s death and after satisfaction of any debts, for the trust’s assets to be disposed to one of the trustees—his sister, Joan Lucille Tapu, being Mr Manukau’s only surviving immediate family member and his property manager and welfare guardian (or, if she predeceased him, her children)— and the trust terminated.

Approach

—to without notice applications

[5] I may determine the application for leave can properly be dealt with without notice if I am satisfied here an enactment expressly permits the application to be made without serving notice of it.2 Leave to commence proceedings by originating

1 Manukau v Griffin SC Hamilton A299/68, 1 August 1973.
2 High Court Rules 2016, r 7.46(3) and (5).

application may be sought without notice.3 I therefore am so satisfied and determine accordingly.

—to originating applications

[6]The Court of Appeal has observed:4

Proceedings in the High Court are normally commenced by filing a statement of claim. However, consistent with the overall objective of the Rules to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of any proceeding or interlocutory application, rr 19.2 to 19.4 provide that various proceedings must be commenced by originating application. These include applications made pursuant to various specified enactments. ……

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 William Manukau Compensation Trust

Details

AGLC: William Manukau Compensation Trust [2025] NZHC 2706
Case: [2025] NZHC 2706
Decision Date: 18 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of an application for orders varying the terms of the William Manukau Compensation Trust, the court was presented with an application by Joan Lucille Tapu and Redoubt Trustees XXII Limited as trustees of the William Manukau Compensation Trust. The trustees sought permission to commence proceedings by way of an originating application and approval of a variation of trust under sections 122 and 124 of the Trusts Act 2019, respectively. The trust was established in 1973 for the benefit of William Wilson Manukau, who suffered a childhood traumatic brain injury, leaving him intellectually impaired and now without capacity. The trustees proposed a variation to the terms of the trust to provide for the disposition of the trust’s assets upon Mr Manukau’s death to one of the trustees—his sister, Joan Lucille Tapu, or her children if she predeceases him.

The court had to determine whether the application could be made without notice and if the originating application procedure was appropriate for this case. The court found that the application could be made without notice as it was permitted by the enactment, and it was in the interests of justice to allow the proceeding to commence by way of an originating application. The court also found that the originating application procedure was suitable for this case as it arose under a specific statutory provision, the issue was clearly defined and confined, and factual issues were not in dispute.

The court then considered whether to approve the variation of trust. The court construed the trust to embody the court’s inferred intention to settle the fund to provide for Mr Manukau’s welfare during his lifetime. The court took into account the factors identified in section 124(4) of the Trusts Act 2019 and the trust’s purpose. The court was satisfied that Mr Manukau would consent to the proposed variation if properly advised, that the variation was not to reduce or remove any vested interest in the trust property, and that the variation was not otherwise to Mr Manukau’s detriment.

The court approved the variation of trust on behalf of Mr Manukau and ordered that the trustees be indemnified from the trust fund for their reasonable costs and expenses incurred on the application.

Orders