Young v Wadman

Case [2024] NZHC 3571


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2024-404-721

[2024] NZHC 3571

UNDER the Trusts Act 2019, the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to supervise trusts and Part 18 of the High Court Rules 2016

IN THE MATTER OF

The Maungaiti Commercial Trust

ON THE APPLICATION OF

MAUNGAITI TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED

Plaintiff

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

G M Coumbe KC, F C Monteiro and K M Bates as counsel for the Plaintiff, Maungaiti Ltd and Margaret Brown

D H McLellan KC and J W H Little as counsel for Natalie Brown and Julia Dobson
L Farmer, H van Schreven and J D Kaye for Gavin Brown

G M Sandelin and G J Angus as counsel for Tiger Brown and Kobe Investments Ltd
V Crawshaw KC, M C Harris and Z A Brentnall as counsel for Rong Kang

N L Walker and F G Wilson as counsel for Perpetual Trust Ltd S L Robertson KC as counsel for the minor and unborn beneficiaries for the Maungaiti Commercial Trust

Judgment:

27 November 2024

Reissued:

29 November 2024


JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on application for orders approving settlement]


This judgment was delivered by Justice Lang On 27 November 2024 at 3.30 pm

Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:…………………………

RE THE MAUNGAITI COMMERCIAL TRUST [2024] NZHC 3571 [27 November 2024]

[1]                This proceeding relates to a discretionary trust known as the Maungaiti Commercial Trust (the Trust). The Trust was settled by Mr Alexander Gavin Brown (Alex) under a Deed of Trust dated 29 June 2017. The Trust is the sole shareholder of Maungaiti Ltd (Maungaiti), through which it holds assets for the beneficiaries.

[2]                Alex died on 30 November 2019. Disputes subsequently arose between members of his family about the ownership and division of assets belonging to him, Maungaiti and the Trust. This resulted in litigation being issued both in New Zealand and overseas. The disputes relating to Maungaiti and the Trust were largely resolved when all but one member of the family entered into a deed of settlement on or about 7 March 2024. This led to the present proceeding, in which the corporate trustee of the Trust, Maungaiti Trustee Company Ltd (the Trustee), sought orders approving the proposed settlement notwithstanding the fact that one of Alex’s sons, Mr Gavin Brown, was not a party to it.

[3]                Gavin now consents to the orders the Trustee seeks. I have been asked to make orders approving the settlement as a matter of urgency because the family wish the Trust and Maungaiti to begin implementing it within the next two weeks.

Background

[4]                Alex was survived by his widow, Ms Rong Kang (Rong). In addition, he was survived by their son Tiger. He was also survived by the three children from his first marriage, namely Natalie, Gavin and Julia. Natalie and Julia each have two children, all of whom are minors. Neither Gavin nor Tiger currently has…

Continue reading Young v Wadman

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Young v Wadman [2024] NZHC 3571
Case
[2024] NZHC 3571
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerns the Maungaiti Commercial Trust, settled by the late Mr Alexander Gavin Brown (Alex) on 29 June 2017. Following Alex's death, disputes arose among his family members regarding the ownership and division of assets belonging to him, Maungaiti Ltd (Maungaiti), and the Trust. These disputes led to litigation in New Zealand and overseas. The Trustee, Maungaiti Trustee Company Ltd, sought court approval for a settlement deed signed by all family members except Mr Gavin Brown, who later consented to the settlement. The central legal issues revolved around whether the court should approve the settlement deed, terminate the trust, and allocate costs.

The court found that the Trustee's decision to enter into the settlement was momentous and warranted judicial blessing. The court concluded that the Trustee's opinion, that the settlement was in the best interests of the beneficiaries, was reasonable and not vitiated by any conflict of interest. The settlement would resolve significant claims against the Trust, enable immediate payments to beneficiaries, and provide for the needs of minor and unborn beneficiaries. The court also determined that jurisdiction existed under the Trusts Act 2019 to approve the settlement and terminate the Trust on behalf of minor and unborn beneficiaries. The court made orders approving the settlement, approving the termination of the Trust, and directing that the costs be met from the Trust's assets.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.