//
you're reading...
Limitation Act

But wait, there’s more

The Supreme Court decision in Erceg v Erceg is the seminal case regarding disclosure of trust information to beneficiaries. Against the backdrop of that case, wider matters involving the Erceg family provide further jurisprudential consideration. Sain v Erceg relates to an Epsom property registered formerly in the name of the late Millie Erceg and latterly the trustees of the Millie Erceg No 1 Trust. Notwithstanding which Vinka Sain maintains that she is the beneficial owner of the property as a remainderman.

Proceedings were required to be filed by Vinka Sain following her successfully sustaining a caveat she lodged on the title of the Epsom property.

Associate Judge Bell provides a useful discussion regarding the interim nature of the sustenance of a caveat and the importance [Editor’s note] regarding the wider context and totality of the evidence.

The case includes consideration as to how certainty of intention can be exerted when following the death of the purported settlor. The application of the 1950 and 2010 Limitation Acts to Vinka’s claim is traversed in some detail and, although fact specific, provides useful historical perspective. See for example:

Substantive consideration of the matter remains to be determined.

References:

  • Sain v Erceg [2021] NZHC 761
  • Erceg v Erceg [2017] NZSC 28

Discussion

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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

Categories

%d bloggers like this: