-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Section 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980, provides that the court has the power to vary the terms of a nuptial settlement where the parties’ marriage or civil union comes to an end. The seminal cases on section 182 are Ward v Ward and Clayton v Clayton [Claymark Trust]. These cases have been clear … Continue reading
Trust “busting” is a topic of enduring interest and has been a feature of the trust landscape as long as trusts have been recognised as a valid form of asset ownership. Jane Phare’s Trust busting: Is it the beginning of the end for hiding relationship property? is a case in point. However, it is important … Continue reading
The application for leave in Little v Little (see A Little guidance on s 182) has been denied by the Supreme Court. the prime thrust of the appeal was that the trust in question was not a nuptial settlement. Reference was made to Te Aka Matua o te Ture/Law Commission (the Law Commission) recommendation that … Continue reading
In Preston v Preston the Court of Appeal notes an observation of counsel that “the matter has eaten its head off.” By way of background: The Grant Preston Family Trust (the Trust) was settled in 2004 three years before Mr Preston met Mrs Preston. The beneficiaries of the Trust included Mr Preston’s children from a … Continue reading
Section 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980 empowers “… the courts to review a settlement and make orders to remedy the consequences of the failure of the premise on which the settlement was made” in circumstances where a nuptial settlement has been made upon a trust of which either or both of the spouses … Continue reading
The Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (the PRA) has primary jurisdiction over relationship property. However, when there is a trust (or trusts) in the mix, the final division of property can be complicated – and often neither side (nor the settlors or trustees who may be caught in the cross-fire) will consider the end result just … Continue reading
The Court of Appeal has upheld the High Court decision in Thakurdas v Wadsworth that executors can bring proceedings under s 182 of the Family Proceedings Act. As noted at [16]: “We add that it is now settled law that s 182 serves an important purpose in relationship property litigation, allowing courts to address property … Continue reading
Pertinent facts: On first blush Biggs v Biggs has the appearance of a David and Goliath style contest. Nation J refers at [10] to the 2300 pages of documents that have had to be considered and at [11] notes that when claims are pursued “in a particular way, there can be scant recognition of the … Continue reading
Following the Supreme Court decision in Clayton v Clayton (Claymark Trust) fresh light has been shed upon the scope of s 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980 in the case of Da Silva v Da Silva. By way of background s 182 gives the Court the discretion following divorce (the section does not apply to de facto relationships) … Continue reading
The Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (the Act) is now under review as part of a significant project that will involve consultation with the public and key stakeholders. The outcome of the review is to be reported back the Minister of Justice in November 2018. See Law Commission to review Property (Relationships) Act 1976. Not surprisingly … Continue reading
Matters of Trust 