New Zealand

You must sign in before downloading any documents from the international trust cases

Cases :

CHAMBERS v HAMILTON CORPORATE TRUSTEE LTD[2017] NZCA 131
- On an application by a trustee for directions, the court has power to make directions other than those sought.CHAMBERS v HAMILTON CORPORATE TRUSTEE LTDDownload
CLAYTON v CLAYTON[2013] NZHC 3 01
- The Court distinguished between a trust which was a sham and a trust which was illusory. CLAYTON v CLAYTONDownload
COMMONWEALTH RESERVES v. CHODAR3 ITELR 549
- The plaintiffs were victims of a fraudulent investment scheme organised by the first and second defendants and claimed that assets held by the third and fourth defendants were held on a constructive trust for them. The judgement contains a useful discussion of the nature of constructive trusts. COMMONWEALTH RESERVES v. CHODARDownload
ERCEG v ERCEG[2017] NZSC 28
- Disclosure of trust documents to beneficiary: consideration of Rosewood and related casesERCEG v ERCEGDownload
GREENPEACE OF NEW ZEALAND INC[2014] NZHC 105
- In New Zealand, political and charitable purposes are not in all cases mutually exclusive GREENPEACE OF NEW ZEALAND INCDownload
RE ESTATE OF CLAMP[2014] NZHC 540
- This is an application for review of the decision of a registrar. It raises an important point of probate practice on which there is surprisingly little authority RE ESTATE OF CLAMPDownload
RE FIRST FAMILY NEW ZEALAND[2018] NZHC 2273
- The purpose of promoting the traditional family unit is not charitable.RE FIRST FAMILY NEW ZEALANDDownload
RE MULLIGAN[1998] 1 NZLR 481
- The trustees invested in fixed-interest securities, whose value was eroded by inflation and were held liable to make restitution to the estate. RE MULLIGANDownload
re QUEENSTOWN LAKES COMMUNITY HOUSING TRUST[2013] NZHC 575 / 16 ITELR
- What is poverty? A trust to enable purchasers to buy homes in an expensive town is held not to be charitable re QUEENSTOWN LAKES COMMUNITY HOUSING TRUSTDownload
ROUND v ROUND
- The court set aside an “unconscionable bargain".ROUND v ROUNDDownload
SELKIRK v. MCINTYRECiv – 2010 – 485-1818
- The liabilities of the trustees, of which there were two, were to be shared equally between them, notwithstanding that one of them claimed to be merely a “passive” trustee. SELKIRK v. MCINTYREDownload
SPRINGFIELD ACRES v. ABACUS[1994] 3 NZLR 503
- Springfield Acres Ltd (“Springfield”) had a creditor whom it did not pay. Instead, it transferred its assets to Hong Kong via a BVI company (“Zamora”) and then went into liquidation. The transferee in Hong Kong was a local company Abacus (Hong Kong) Ltd (“Abacus”). This was owned by Coopers & Lybrand, of whom Mr. Butcher was a partner. Abacus received the assets as trustee for the benefit of the family of Mr. Wansbone, owner of Springfield, and as such made various advances and disbursements. The liquidator of Springfield claimed (inter alia) that the assets were held on a constructive trust for Springfield. No crystal ball is required to foresee that these transactions would not commend themselves to the Court. SPRINGFIELD ACRES v. ABACUSDownload
WOODS v. LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER[2013] NZHC 674
- A solicitor drawing a will failed to check the title to the property. WOODS v. LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICERDownload