you're reading...
bare trust, Beneficiaries, Common intention constructive trusts, constructive trusts, Express Trust, Fiduciary duties, Gifting, Resulting trusts, Testamentary trusts, trust, Trusts

Ink vs litigation

On first glance Almond v Read, appears to have it all.  Arguments were made relating to the parties common intention, a constructive trust and breaches of fiduciary duty in the context of family owned land that was acquired with best of intentions.  However, over time, different parties adopted different views of the basis upon which a single family member was the sole registered proprietor of a rural property.

Ultimately, in a decision that was upheld on appeal, the court found that there was an institutional constructive trust whereby Ms Almond was required to yield to the parties’ express common intention based on their respective contributions not her recall as to what was intended. Almond v Read highlights the need for parties to complex financial arrangement’s to properly record what is intended and how this is funded.  Where parties do not, the court can provide an expensive means for determining objectively, what was intended and who should benefit in what proportions.


  • Almond v Read [2019] NZCA 26



No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s



%d bloggers like this: