//
archives

Indmenity

This category contains 9 posts

Exit stage left

Oldfield v Oldfield relates to the trust consequences of a marriage breakup.  Specifically, who should be the trustees when the settlors, who are also trustees, can no longer work together. Mrs Oldfield wishes to see Mr Oldfield removed as a trustee.  Mr Oldfield’s view is that it is not appropriate to replace the trustees, rather the … Continue reading

Proper and reasonable

Until his removal in 2014 Toni Waho was a trustee of the Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust (the Trust), a trust that promotes the use and retention of Te Reo.  Me Waho was removed as a trustee on grounds that he had brought the Trust into disrepute by raising matters relating to the Trust and its … Continue reading

Strangers and Beddoe orders

A Beddoe order (the name derives from the case Re Beddoe (Downes v Cottam))  is an order made by the court that permits trustees to incur expense on behalf of the trust filing or defending proceedings. A Beddoe order (if obtained) protects the trustees against claims by the beneficiaries that the action should not have been brought … Continue reading

Between a rock and a hard place

Mr Pratley was a Court appointed executor and trustee of two estates.  At the time of his appointment a 2-day hearing had already been set down to determine a claim against the prior executor and trustee.  The time-line is as follows: Mr Pratley’s appointment as executor and trustee – 20 October 2015 21 October 2015 Mr … Continue reading

Equitable lien equality

As noted in Representation of Rawlinson & Hunter SA re Z Trusts at decision of the Royal Court of Jersey at [2] a trustee’s equitable lien is a “device of equity granted to trustees by the Court to give them rights of indemnity and priority over the interest of beneficiaries.”  The Royal Court in this case then … Continue reading

Costs bite when trustees fight

Trustees fall out, sometimes to the point where a working relationship is no longer possible. Applications to remove trustees are becoming an increasingly common occurrence. So, should trustees fight attempts to remove them? When is it appropriate to do so, and when not? And what are the potential consequences of misjudged opposition? The recent decision … Continue reading

Myths and liability

Trustees act personally.  As noted in the Supreme Court judgment in Macalister Todd Phillips Bodkins v AMP (emphasis added): “Liabilities incurred by a trustee in relation to a trust are always the personal liabilities of the trustee … A creditor has a personal right to sue a trustee and to get judgment and make the … Continue reading

Trustees “fortunate” to be liable for only 50%

The Rex White Family Trust (RWFT) was found to have failed by reason of uncertainty. While the Court accepted it was appropriate for the trustees to have sought directions from the Court, it was found that they had acted unreasonably by pursuing an argument as to the existence of the RWFT, which was lacking in merit.  … Continue reading

Protecting the trustee’s position on the changing of the guard

The decision in Meritus Trust Company Limited v Butterfield Trust, a decision of the Supreme Court of Bermuda, considers the practical matter of whether a removed trustee can retain sufficient trust assets against which to enforce its indemnity in relation to a contingent costs liability.  In this case the contingent costs liability was estimated at $5 million and … Continue reading

Categories