|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
High Court of New Zealand Decisions |
Last Updated: 17 April 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY
CIV 2011-470-001088 [2012] NZHC 654
UNDER the Charitable Trusts Act 1957
IN THE MATTER OF an application for the variation of the Frank Sydenham Scholarship Trust pursuant to Part 3 of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957
BETWEEN THE NEW ZEALAND GUARDIAN TRUST COMPANY LIMITED AS TRUSTEE OF THE FRANK SYDENHAM SCHOLARSHIP TRUST
Hearing: 21 March 2012
Counsel: J I Arnold for the Applicant
Judgment: 4 April 2012
RESERVED JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J
This judgment was delivered by me on 4 April 2012 at 2 pm
pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules
Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date:
Counsel/Solicitors:
D Baltakmensl: dagny.baltakmens@crownlaw.govt.nz
M Dorset: mike@jacksonreeves.co.nz
Copy to:
C Gwyn, Deputy Solicitor-General: Cheryl.gwyn@crownlaw.govt.nz
RE THE FRANK SYDENHAM SCHOLARSHIP TRUST HC TAU CIV 2011-470-001088 [4 April 2012]
Introduction
[1] The applicant, the New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Limited, as trustee of the Frank Sydenham Scholarship Trust has made application under ss 32 and 33 of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 to vary the trust in certain respects. It has prepared a scheme seeking to extend or vary its powers in relation to the trust, and to vary the mode of administering the trust.
[2] The scheme was submitted to the Attorney-General as required by s 35 of the Act. Ms Gwyn, the Deputy Solicitor-General, in exercise of the functions of the Attorney-General pursuant to a delegation under s 9C of the Constitution Act 1986, prepared a report. The report confirmed that the Attorney-General is satisfied that the scheme is a proper one, and that it should carry out the desired purpose. The Attorney-General considers that the scheme can be approved by the Court under Part III of the Act, and that every proposed purpose is charitable within the meaning of the Act.
[3] Notice of the application has been given in the Gazette and in the Bay of Plenty Times, in accordance with the provisions of s 36 of the Act. No notice of opposition has been received by either the trustee, or the trust’s solicitors.
Background
[4] Mr Frank Sydenham was a commercial grower resident in Tauranga. He died on 16 February 1973. He left a will, which was dated 27 October 1972.
[5] Pursuant to his will, Mr Sydenham appointed the New Zealand Insurance Company Limited as his executor and trustee. The trust department undertaking of the New Zealand Insurance Company Limited was vested in the applicant in 1982.
[6] Mr Sydenham made various specific bequests and he established a trust, known as the “Frank Sydenham Scholarship Trust”. Relevantly, the will provided as follows:
[7] Clause 5(b) — the trustee was to hold the residuary estate in perpetuity:
... for the promotion and encouragement of post-graduate study in horticulture agriculture or forestry (which may include post- graduate study in any subjects related to those pursuits such as but not limited to chemistry engineering food processing and animal husbandry) in New Zealand or overseas...
[8] Clause 6 — the income from the residuary estate was to be applied in establishing scholarships to be called the “Frank Sydenham Scholarship”, such scholarships:
... to be from time to time awarded to past pupils of State Colleges State Secondary Schools or State District High Schools as at present existing or becoming established at any time hereafter... in the City of Tauranga Boroughs of Mt Maunganui Opotiki Te Puke and Whakatane and Counties of Opotiki, Tauranga and Whakatane and in any municipality... within the boundaries as they are at the date of this my will... of any of the aforesaid City Boroughs or Counties...
[9] Pursuant to cl 7(a), scholarships may be awarded each year. The trustee can decide how many scholarships should be awarded in each year. Each scholarship is to be of the yearly value of $1,000, although the trustee has the discretion to alter that sum. The intent is to ensure that the sum made available has a similar purchasing power to the sum of $1,000 in 1972, having regard to the Government Statistician’s Consumer Pricing Index. The trustee also has a power to increase the amount of any scholarship in defined circumstances. Pursuant to clause 7(b), in determining the number of scholarships to be awarded each year, the trustee is to have regard to, inter alia, the amount of income being produced from the residuary estate.
[10] Clause 8 — the scholarships are to be awarded to pupils who have attained degrees in horticulture or agriculture or forestry at any university in New Zealand, the British Isles, Canada or Australia.
[11] Clause 9 — no candidate over 40 years of age is eligible for a scholarship, and preference is to be given to candidates under the age of 35. Scholarships are to be available to both males and females.
[12] Clause 10 — no or only one award is to be made in any year if the:
...Tauranga Colleges Board of Governors or other such Body considers that there is no or only one suitable candidate for a scholarship offering in that year.
[13] Clause 13 — an award is to be made:
[O]nly to candidates who if going overseas for post-graduate study... will be returning to New Zealand within five (5) years from the date of the... scholarship being awarded and on return to New Zealand shall be residing permanently in New Zealand for at least five (5) years... Awards to candidates intending to remain in New Zealand for their post-graduate studies shall be made only to those who shall continue to reside permanently in New Zealand for five (5) years.
The trustee is directed to require a successful candidate for a scholarship, as a condition of the scholarship, to enter into a bond whereby the candidate agrees to refund to the trustee the amount he or she had received under the scholarship if he or she does not comply with the requirement for permanent residence in New Zealand following the award of the scholarship. Mr Sydenham directed that:
... in the awarding the scholarships the selection shall be made only of those candidates who appear to be certain of returning to reside or remaining resident permanently in New Zealand.
[14] Clause 14 — the selection of candidates and awarding of scholarships is to be made by a selection committee of seven members. The committee comprises the manager of the trustees’ trust department. He or she chairs the meetings. One member of the committee is to be a principal in the firm of solicitors to the estate. The other five members were to be appointed by the chairmen of the boards of governors or school committees of the schools whose past pupils are eligible for the scholarship.
[15] Clause 15 — the trustee is to reimburse the chairman and members of the selection committee for their out of pocket expenses in attending meetings, including travelling expenses and any accommodation expenses.
Difficulties faced by the Trustee
[16] An affidavit has been filed by a Mr Craig Roebuck. He is the client manager of the applicant company. He deposes that the position of the trust has become unsatisfactory, because it is unable to utilise all of the income produced by the trust fund.
[17] The trust’s income for the period 2001 to 2010 was $425,016. Only
$156,500 was awarded in a total of 28 scholarships. Surplus income for the period is
$268,516.
[18] The most recent accounts available to the Court are for the year ended
31 March 2010. They show that the trust’s income for that financial year was
$48,215. Only one scholarship was awarded in the total sum of $8,000. The surplus income for the year is accordingly $40,215.
[19] The number of scholarships awarded has declined over the years. Seven awards were made in 2001. In 2005 there were only four awards. There were five awards in 2006. There was only one award in 2007, three in 2008, no awards in
2009, and only one award in 2010.
[20] Mr Roebuck has identified five principle difficulties which the trust presently faces:
[21] The geographical catchment area specified in the will is too restrictive. There are very few applicants meeting the relevant criteria;
[22] The requirement that scholarship recipients must either remain in, or return to New Zealand on a permanent basis, and the direction that the trustee obtain a bond in that regard, are onerous, and are dissuading applicants from applying;
[23] The Tauranga Colleges Board of Governors, which has the power to determine that there is no or only one suitable candidate for a scholarship in any particular year, no longer exists, and no equivalent body has replaced it;
[24] The trustee has difficulty attracting sufficient persons to make up the selection committee in accordance with the will. There are no Boards of Governors any longer, and there is no centralised Board;
[25] The trustee’s inability to pay selection committee members for their time is a barrier to attracting and retaining appropriate members.
[26] Mr Roebuck is concerned that as matters stand, there are simply insufficient eligible persons who qualify for the grant of a scholarship, and/or who are prepared to enter into the bond arrangements detailed in the will.
[27] The trustee has been unable to attract a sufficient number of suitable applicants to distribute the accumulating income. This has put the trustee in breach of the accrual rules contained in the late Mr Sydenham’s will.
Proposed Variations
[28] The proposed variations to the trust deed are intended to allow broader access to the scholarships, and to give the trustee and the selection board greater flexibility, albeit in keeping with the original intentions of the late Mr Sydenham.
[29] The scheme advanced by the trustee broadly proposes that the trust be varied as follows:
[30] The geographic catchment area be widened to include the wider Bay of Plenty region;
[31] The requirement that a bond be obtained from scholarship recipients be removed and instead, that scholarship recipients be required to give an undertaking in good faith to return to and remain in New Zealand;
[32] The selection committee be substituted for the Tauranga Colleges
Board of Governors in cl 10 of the will;
[33] The selection committee be reduced to three members comprising the trustee, the estate solicitor and the Dean of the Faculty of Science and Engineering at the University of Waikato, or his or her representative, or such other member as shall be appointed at the trustee’s discretion;
[34] The trustee be authorised to compensate selection committee members for their time involved in selecting candidates.
[35] The change proposed in (a) above comes within s 32 of the Act. It is a proposal to extend the geographical catchment area and it potentially affects the purpose of the trust. The remaining changes proposed in (b) to (e) come within s 33. They seek to affect the mode of administration of the trust.
Variation of Trust — General Principles
[36] The purposes of a charitable trust or the mode of administration of a charitable trust can be varied under Part III of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957.[1]
[37] The relevant principles applicable to a variation of trust under Part III of the
Act were discussed by Hammond J in Re Tennant.[2] They are as follows:
[38] The application must come within the statutory jurisdiction (which includes a necessity for the purposes to have been charitable at the date of settlement);
[39] The substituted arrangements must be charitable as that term is understood in law;
[40] In deciding whether to approve the substituted arrangements, the new scheme should accord as closely as is reasonably possible in the changed circumstances to the terms of the original trusts, and
[41] The Court will dispose of the property in such a way as will best serve the interests of those intended to be beneficiaries and the public.
[42] Section 32(1) of the Act provides as follows:
32 Property may be disposed of for other charitable purposes
(1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (3) of this section, in any case where any property or income is given or held upon trust, or is to be applied, for any charitable purpose, and it is impossible or impracticable or inexpedient to carry out that purpose, or the amount available is inadequate to carry out that purpose, or that purpose has been effected already, or that purpose is illegal or useless or uncertain, then (whether or not there is any general charitable intention) the property and income or any part or residue thereof or the proceeds of sale thereof shall be disposed of for some other charitable purpose, or a combination of such purposes, in the manner and subject to the provisions hereafter contained in this Part of this Act.
(emphasis added)
[43] A scheme under s 32 cannot be approved unless it is established that it is “impossible, impracticable or inexpedient” to carry out the purpose of the trust. “Impossible” and “impracticable” have a plain meaning. “Inexpedient” was added as a criterion by the Religious Charitable and Educational Trusts Amendment Act
1928 to cover situations where, although neither impossible nor impracticable, to
carry out the purpose, it would be inexpedient by virtue of it having become unsuitable, inadvisable or inapt.[3]
[44] In varying the purpose of a charitable trust under s 32 of the Act, the Court is exercising a statutory jurisdiction. Section 32 and Parts 3 and 5 of the Act together achieve in New Zealand what was previously achieved by the equitable doctrine of cy-près. This doctrine permitted funds in a charitable trust, where the intended purpose of the trust had become impossible or impracticable, to be applied by the Court to objects that were as near as possible to the original intention of the donor.
The Charitable Trusts Act supersedes the doctrine of cy-près.[4]
[45] Part III of the Act does not make a cy-près approach mandatory. However, the Court has held in a number of decisions that those promoting a scheme should nonetheless seek to substitute beneficiaries or purposes resembling as closely as possible in the changed circumstances those specified by the original settlor.[5]
[46] Section 33 provides as follows:
In any case where it is made to appear that any property or income is given or held upon trust, or is to be applied, for any charitable purpose, and the administration of the property or income or the carrying out of the trust could be facilitated by extending or varying the powers of the trustees or by prescribing or varying the mode of administering the trust, the powers of the trustees may be extended or varied, and the mode of administering the trust may be prescribed or varied, in the manner and subject to the provisions hereafter contained in this Part of this Act:
Provided that nothing in this section shall restrict the powers that are or may be conferred on the Court or the trustees by or under the Trustee Act 1956 or any other Act or by law.
[47] The jurisdiction under s 33 of the Act is intended to deal with problems of administration faced by charitable trustees in giving effect to the intended purpose.[6]
As was noted by Patterson J in Re Melanesian Mission Trust Board,[7] the threshold
for a scheme submitted under s 33 is as follows:
[I]t is necessary for this Court to be satisfied that the administration of the property where the carrying out of the trust “could be facilitated” by the variation sought. The ordinary or dictionary meaning of facilitate is “made easier, promoted, or helped forward”.
[48] It is no part of the Court’s duty to perpetuate the views of a charitable testator which, however valid at the time expressed, are no longer appropriate to modern conditions.[8]
[49] The Court’s jurisdiction in respect of schemes is set out in s 53. Inter alia, it may hear and determine all matters relating to a scheme. There are however restrictions on the approval of any scheme. Relevantly, s 56 of the Act provides as follows:
56 Restrictions on approval of schemes
(1) No scheme shall be approved by the Court under Part 3 of this Act, or by the Court or the Attorney-General under Part 4 of this Act, unless the Court or the Attorney-General is satisfied—
(a) That the scheme is a proper one, and should carry out the desired purpose or proposal, and is not contrary to law or public policy or good morals; that the scheme can be approved under the Part of this Act under which the approval is sought; that every proposed purpose is charitable within the meaning of that Part of this Act and can be carried out; and that the requirements of that Part of this Act have been complied with in respect of the scheme:
...
Analysis
[50] I deal first with the proposed alteration to the geographical catchment area from which candidates for selection must come.
[51] Section 32 can only apply where property or income is given or held on trust for any charitable purpose.
[52] The trustee may award scholarships for post-graduate study in particular fields to former students of schools located within a defined geographical area. Broadly, the purpose of the trust is to advance education. Gifts for the benefit, advancement and propagation of education and learning are charitable, even without specifying the mode of advancement.[9] So are gifts for the education of a limited class of persons forming a section of the community are charitable — for example, a bequest to the trustees of a friendly Society for the purpose of establishing a scholarship to be competed for only by the sons and daughters of members of the Society was held to be charitable.[10] I am satisfied that the purpose of the trust at the date of settlement was charitable.
[53] Before the Court can approve a scheme of arrangement seeking to alter the purposes of a charitable trust, it must be satisfied that it is “impossible or impracticable or inexpedient to carry out” the existing purpose.
[54] I have noted above that, broadly, the purpose of the trust is to advance education. Specifically, the trust seeks to promote and encourage post-graduate study in horticulture, agriculture or forestry, or in related fields. To this end, the trustees may award scholarships to the past pupils of state colleges, state secondary schools, or state district high schools in the City of Tauranga, or within what were the boroughs of Mt Maunganui, Opotiki, Te Puke, and Whakatane, and the counties of Opotiki, Tauranga and Whakatane. While the past pupils of future schools within those areas will be eligible, there is no provision for extension of the overall
geographical area itself.
[55] Mr Roebuck has deposed that there are “few if any” applicants meeting the criteria established in the will. Clearly, it is not impossible or impracticable for the trustee to carry out the existing purpose of the trust. Scholarships have been awarded in each of the years from 2001 to 2010, with the exception of 2009. I accept however the point made by Mr Roebuck in his affidavit that the trustee is having considerable difficulty in attracting suitable applicants. There are simply too few eligible candidates who are making themselves available for scholarship selection. In my view, the original charitable purpose has become inexpedient, in the sense that it has become unsuitable or inapt, because of the geographical restraint imposed by the settlor in his will.
[56] The scheme proposed by the trustee seeks to widen the defined catchment area, so that it extends to the greater Bay of Plenty area. The trustee considers that such variation would increase the number of potential candidates, while still retaining the local flavour of the trust. Mr Roebuck has deposed that there are some
10 state schools providing secondary school education, with a combined roll of approximately 5,200 students, within the greater Bay of Plenty region, but outside the existing geographical requirement. Rotorua is within the greater Bay of Plenty area. Rotorua has become the forestry and horticultural hub of the Bay of Plenty. There are various relevant research institutions located in the Rotorua area, for example, the Scion Research Institute, formerly the New Zealand Forestry Research Institute. There are close relationships between the various townships and cities in the wider Bay of Plenty area, because there is broad horticultural and forestry investment throughout the area. The natural evolution of the industry, coupled with technological advances, has resulted in the expansion and growth of the horticultural and forestry industry in a way that the late Mr Sydenham could not readily have foreseen, throughout the greater region.
[57] I am satisfied that the proposed variation will not affect the charitable purpose of the trust. It will merely enlarge the geographic area from which scholarship applicants can be drawn. The variations accords with the late Mr Sydenham’s intention to restrict the availability of scholarships to past pupils of schools in the Bay of Plenty area. It simply extends the geographical catchment to the wider Bay of Plenty, but no further. The proposed variation expands the area
only to the limited extent necessary to increase the number of eligible applicants so more scholarships can be awarded. The trust’s purpose will remain charitable, and in my judgment, the trust as varied will accord as closely as is reasonably possible, in the changed circumstances, to the terms of the original trust.
[58] I now turn to the proposed variations under s 33 of the Act.
[59] As noted above, at present an award can only be made to a candidate who intends to reside permanently in New Zealand for a period of at least five years following his or her graduation. The trustee is directed to require a successful candidate for a scholarship to enter into a bond in this regard.
[60] The trustee seeks to vary this provision so that applicants are required only to give an undertaking in good faith to return to New Zealand, and/or to remain in New Zealand, for a five-year period.
[61] It is Mr Roebuck’s evidence that the existing requirement puts off a number of prospective applicants. He notes that overseas travel is very common for graduates who either seek foreign work opportunities, or general “OE” experience. Mr Roebuck asserts that there has been a change in the patterns of post-graduate study and work between 1971 and 2012.
[62] In my view, the essential purpose of the trust is to encourage post-graduate study in horticulture, agriculture and forestry. A bond and surety requirement places an emphasis on successful candidates remaining in New Zealand. However, social conditions have changed markedly since 1971. I accept that bright and able post-graduate students will likely wish to go overseas within five years of completing their studies, or at least not shut off that possibility. It is likely that many of these people will ultimately return to New Zealand, but they should not be required to enter into a bond that they will remain in New Zealand for a period of five years following the completion of their post-graduate study. In my view, the proposed variation facilitates the carrying out of the purpose of the trust. Indeed, the variation is likely to create additional flexibility, enhancing the purpose of the trust. Requiring a good faith undertaking rather than a bond is likely to encourage a greater
number of applicants, allowing the selection committee to draw from a wider and perhaps better pool of candidates. This facilitates the administration of the trust, without disregarding the settlor’s intention that New Zealand should benefit from having scholarship recipients return to share their knowledge and experience gained with the assistance of trust funds.
[63] I now turn to the proposed alteration to cl 10 in the will. I have summarised that clause above. Mr Roebuck has deposed that the Tauranga Colleges Board of Governors ceased to function in 1980, and that there is no equivalent body because Tauranga Boys College, Tauranga Girls College, and Otumoetai College are all administered by separate Boards. The trustee proposes to vary clause 10 in the will by substituting the selection committee for the Tauranga College Board of Governors.
[64] Once again, it seems to me that this proposal is sensible, and that it will facilitate the administration of the trust. The variation is not inconsistent with the trust in any significant way. It simply reflects changes to the governance of secondary schools in New Zealand generally, and Tauranga specifically. The variation removes a direction which can no longer be fulfilled, and it makes no substantial difference to either the purpose of the trust or the demands on the trust fund. It will facilitate achievement of the purpose for which the trust was established.
[65] The trustee also proposes that the selection committee be reduced from seven members to three members. As the will stands, there is a requirement that the selection committee have seven members comprising the trustee, a partner of the legal firm administering the estate, and five other members appointed by the chairmen of the boards of governors of secondary schools in Tauranga, Mt Maunganui, Opotiki, Te Puke and Whakatane district.
[66] Mr Roebuck has deposed that pursuant to the 1980 school reforms known as “Tomorrow’s Schools”, boards of governors no longer exist. They were replaced by individual boards of trustees charged with the responsibility of managing their particular school. There is no centralised board. In practice, for some time, the
selection committee has comprised only the manager of the trustee, and a partner of the legal firm. There have been no appointees by the chairmen of the boards of governors of secondary schools.
[67] Again, I accept that this variation is desirable as a matter of practicality. The requirements in the will are unwieldy. The selection committee is simply too large, and circumstances have changed since the will was signed. The trustee’s proposal that the selection committee should comprise the manager of the trustee, a partner of the legal firm, and one other person representing the horticulture and forestry industry, seems eminently sensible.
[68] Finally, the trustee proposes that it should be authorised to compensate selection committee members for their time involved in selecting candidates.
[69] The will provides only for out of pocket expenses to be met. That is a considerable disincentive to prospective committee members. They are entitled to expect that their reasonable costs in attending meetings and in carrying out their duties as members of the selection committee should be reimbursed. The alteration proposed by the trustee facilitates the administration of the trust, and makes no substantial difference to either the purpose of the trust, or the demands on the trust fund.
Conclusion
[70] I have considered each of the variations proposed by the trustee. I am satisfied that I have jurisdiction to approve the proposed scheme under s 53 of the Act. The requirements of the Act have been complied with. The scheme is a proper scheme, and it will serve to carry out the desired charitable purpose. It is not contrary to law or public policy or good morals. It can be approved under Part III of the Act, and the proposed extended purpose is charitable within the meaning of the Act. I am also satisfied that the proposed charitable purpose can be carried out with the variation in place.
[71] Accordingly, I make an order approving the scheme of variation in terms of Part III of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957. Specifically, I order the following variations to the trust created by the late Mr Sydenham’s will:
[72] Clause 6 Delete all words after the words “Frank Sydenham
Scholarship” and replace with the following:
...to be from time to time awarded to past pupils of State Colleges, State Secondary Schools or State District Schools as at present existing or becoming established at any time hereafter whether before or after the date of my death within the Bay of Plenty Region, being within the statutory boundary of the Bay of Plenty Regional Council.
[73] Clause 10 Delete and replace with the following:
No or only one award shall be made in any one year if the Selection Committee considers that there is no or only one suitable candidate for a scholarship offering in that year.
[74] Clause 13 Delete the part of the clause starting with the words “I DIRECT” and replace with the following:
I DIRECT that my Trustee shall require a successful candidate for a scholarship as a condition of the scholarship to provide an undertaking in good faith to comply with the residency provisions contained within this clause following the award of a scholarship AND I DIRECT that in the awarding of scholarships the selection shall be made only of those candidates who appear to be certain of returning to reside or remaining resident permanently in New Zealand.
[75] Clause 14 Delete from the start of the clause down to the words “...shall have one vote for each such school”, and replace with the following:
The selection of candidates and awarding of scholarships shall be made by a selection committee that shall have three members. One such member shall be the Trust Manager of my Trustee’s Trust Department at Tauranga or such other officer of my Trustee as my Trustee may from time to time appoint. One member of the said committee shall be a principal of the firm of solicitors to my estate, Jackson Reeves or its successor. One member of the said committee will be the Dean, or his representative, of the Faculty of Science and Engineering at the University of Waikato, or such other member as the Trustee in its discretion appoints.
Delete the words “The quorum for a meeting of the Selection
Committee shall be five (5)...” and replace with the words:
The quorum for a meeting of the Selection Committee shall be two
(2)...
[76] Clause 15 Delete and replace with the following:
I direct that my Trustee shall out of the income from my residuary estate reimburse the said Chairman and the members of the Selection Committee for their time spent in their role as a member of the said committee, at a rate determined by the Trustee, and all their out of
pocket expenses in attending meetings.
Costs
[77] I direct that the trustee’s reasonable costs and disbursements be met out of the
trust fund. I also direct that the sum of $750 be paid by the trustee out of the trust
fund to the office of the Attorney-General in payment of the Deputy
Solicitor-General’s costs in preparing the report in respect of the application.
Wylie J
[1] It has been held that when the statutory jurisdiction is available, the Court may not exercise its inherent jurisdiction — Re Palmerston North Halls Trust Board [1976] 2 NZLR 161 (SC). The Court of Appeal has however more recently left open the question of whether or not this decision is correct — Alacoque v Roache [1998] 2 NZLR 250 (CA).
[2] Re Tennant [1996] 2 NZLR 633 (HC).
[3] Re McElroy Trust [2002] 3 NZLR 99 at [14]; St John of God Health & Elder Care Services Trust
Board v Little Sisters of the Poor (NZ) Trust Board HC Napier CIV 2007-441-628, 11 August
2008.
[4] Public Trustee v Attorney-General [1923] NZLR 433; Re McElroy Trust [2002] 3 NZLR 99 at
103; affirmed in Trustees of the McElroy Trust v Objectors [2003] 2 NZLR 289 (CA); St John of
God Health & Elder Care Services Trust, above n 3, at 20.
[5] Re Twigger
[1989] 3 NZLR 329 at
342.
[6] Re
Keeley (deceased) HC Hamilton M 316/81, 27 July 1982 at
12.
[7]
Re Melanesian Mission Trust Board HC Auckland M 1140/98, 24
September 1998 at
7.
[8] Re
The Dilworth Trustees Act 1967 HC Auckland M 1764/80, 19 March 1981.
[9] Whicker v Hume [1858] EngR 991; (1858) 11 ER 50.
[10] Public Trustee v Commissioner of Stamps (1907) 26 NZLR 773.
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2012/654.html