Willis v Waddell - [2022] NZHC 3248

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CIV-2021-416-20

[2022] NZHC 3248

UNDER the Declaratory Judgments Act 1908

IN THE MATTER OF

an application for an Order Determining Beneficiaries of a Trust

BETWEEN

WILLIAM DONALD WILLIS

Applicant

AND

CHRISTINE ANNE WADDELL and NGAPUKE STN TRUSTEE CO LIMITED

as trustees of the Willis Family Trust Respondents

Hearing: 20 June 2022

Counsel:

N Weatherhead for the Applicant D M Kerr for the Respondents

G C Kohler KC for Michael Willis

Judgment:

6 December 2022

JUDGMENT OF PALMER J

Solicitors:
G C Kohler KC
Wilson, Barber & Co, Gisborne Sainsbury, Logan & Williams, Napier

WILLIS v WADDELL [2022] NZHC 3248 [6 December 2022]

Summary

[1] In September 1953, William Arthur Willis (Bill) and Hine Mataera i Te Rangi White (Marie) had a child, William Donald Willis (William).1 In July 1956, Bill married Margaret Willis (Peg). They had two children, Christene Waddell and Michael Willis. In 1997, Bill and Peg established the Willis Family Trust (the Trust). Clause 2(e) of the Deed provides that the final beneficiaries are “children and grandchildren of the said [Bill] and [Peg] as may be living at the Vesting Day”. Vesting day is 80 years from establishment of the Trust or on the death of both Christene and Michael, whichever comes first. Clause 2(g) provide that the discretionary beneficiaries were “[t]he children of the said [Bill] and [Peg]; namely [Christene] and [Michael]”. William applies for a declaration that he is a discretionary and final beneficiary of the Trust.

[2] The naming of the discretionary beneficiaries of the Trust and other wording of the Deed indicates that William is not intended to be a beneficiary. That is the plain meaning of the text of the Trust deed (the Deed). The evidence is that Bill knew about William when the Trust was established and that Peg had met him and his daughter, though it is not entirely clear whether Peg knew of the relationship. Christene thinks she did not. Neither Bill nor Peg told the trustees they appointed about William. The solicitor, who was the settlor of the Trust, and the protector of the Trust did not know about William. That context does not suggest any gloss should be put on the plain meaning of the Deed. I dismiss the application.

What happened?

Who is who

[3] On 17 September 1953, William was born to Hine Mataera i Te Rangi White and Bill. They did not marry. William was brought up by his mother and his grandmother.

[4] In July 1956, Bill married Peg. Bill and Peg had two children, Christene Waddell and Michael Willis.

1 Given the common surnames, I refer to those involved by their first name. I mean no disrespect.

The Trust

[5] Bill and Peg built up their assets over the years, using Peg’s inheritance and acquiring a leasehold to a farm, Ngapuke Station. After Bill developed some health problems in 1989, Christene and her husband were…

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 Willis v Waddell

Details

AGLC: Willis v Waddell [2022] NZHC 3248
Case: [2022] NZHC 3248
Decision Date: 6 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand was presented with an application for a declaration regarding the beneficiaries of the Willis Family Trust. William Donald Willis sought to be recognised as both a discretionary and final beneficiary of the Trust, which was established by his father, Bill, and stepmother, Peg, in 1997. The Trust's Deed specified that the final beneficiaries are the children and grandchildren of Bill and Peg, living at the Vesting Day. The respondents, including the trustees of the Trust, opposed William's application.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether William, born to Bill and another woman prior to Bill's marriage to Peg, was intended to be a beneficiary of the Trust. This involved interpreting the language of the Trust deed, considering the settlors' intention, and assessing the context and circumstances surrounding the establishment of the Trust.

The Court found that the plain meaning of the Trust deed indicated that William was not intended to be a beneficiary. Clause 2(e) of the Deed specifies that the final beneficiaries are "children and grandchildren of the said [Bill] and [Peg]," while Clause 2(g) names the discretionary beneficiaries as "the children of the said [Bill] and [Peg]; namely [Christene] and [Michael]." The Court concluded that these clauses made explicit that Christene and Michael were the intended children, excluding William. The Court also noted that there was no evidence suggesting that William's omission from the Deed was anything other than intentional. The Court dismissed William's application.

The Court ordered that the application be dismissed. Any unresolved issues regarding costs were to be addressed through memoranda within 10 working days of the judgment.

Orders