Hey v Hey [2020] NZHC 365 (3 March 2020)

Last Updated: 9 March 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CIV-2020-412-9 [2020] NZHC 365

UNDER	The Declaratory Judgments Act 1908 and the Trustees Act 1956 and/or pursuant to the Court’s inherent jurisdiction
IN THE MATTER OF	The BMA AND DCL HEY FAMILY TRUST
BETWEEN	DOROTHY CATHERINE LOUISE HEY Plaintiff
AND	ALISTAIR WILLIAM HEY Defendant

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	C J G Lucas for Plaintiff
Judgment:	3 March 2020

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE LESTER

(Directions as to service)

This judgment was delivered by me on 3 March 2020 at 4.00pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar 3 March 2020

HEY v HEY [2020] NZHC 365 [3 March 2020]

[1] Dorothy Catherine Louise Hey (“Ms Hey”) seeks a declaration that she is the sole appointor of the BMA & DCL Hey Family Trust.

[2] The Trust Deed has been produced to the Court and counsel has filed a helpful memorandum with suggested directions.

[3] The named defendant, Mr Alistair William Hey, the son of the plaintiff is to be served, Ms Hey’s co-trustee, Christopher Hey, is also to be served.

[4] Included in the class of beneficiaries is a reference to any trust or superannuation scheme established by the settlor to benefit the discretionary beneficiaries. None is known and so no directions are made in that regard are required.

[5] That leaves the question of the children of Alistair Hey who are included in the class of discretionary beneficiaries. In my view, the children of Alistair Hey should be served. I am conscious that Max Sean Hey is a minor. The directions I am giving are to try and avoid the need for unnecessary expense.

[6] I direct that there be service on the adult children of Alistair Hey. Abbey Jacinda Hey is to represent the interests of Max Sean Hey. If that is not practical for any reason, further directions in respect of protecting Max’s interest are to be sought.

[7] I have departed from the suggestion of counsel partly because I do not know anything about the relationships between the various parties. It may well be that Alistair’s adult children elect to take no steps, but I would prefer that they be aware of the proceedings. As I have said, should Abbey feel unable to represent Max’s interests then she is to advise the plaintiff’s solicitor who is to seek further directions in that regard.

Associate Judge Lester

Solicitors:

Lucas & Lucas, Dunedin