Trust: re 'Generations Family Trust'

  

High Court ‘blessing’ in advance of trust restructuring absolves trustees from any personal liability, a process used by trustees of an un-named multi-million dollar discretionary family trust where tax consequences following restructuring are still unknown.

Given the alias ‘Generations Family Trust’ in a publicly released court judgment, the Wellington-based Trust was described as holding shares valued in the ‘tens of millions’ of dollars, together with five million dollars in bank term PIE deposits.

The Trust was established in 1984 by a couple who had no children together, but between them had nine children from previous relationships.

The two died a few years apart, more than twenty years ago.

Trustees have subsequently made annual payments to beneficiaries.

The High Court was told there are currently fifty trust beneficiaries: encompassing the settlors’ nine children, plus grand-children and great-grandchildren.  These beneficiaries live all round the world; primarily in New Zealand and Australia. 

Following general agreement that it was time to windup the Trust, trustees liaised with lawyers, accountants, actuaries and tax specialists, settling on a formula to divide trust capital into nine tranches.

Trustees propose cashing up trust assets; proceeds settled on new multiple trusts.

Their proposal put to beneficiaries raised no objections, other than concerns about potential tax liability.  With beneficiaries spread across multiple tax jurisdictions and with each jurisdiction having its own tax rules, some beneficiaries would see their windfall payout cut back because of tax due.

When applying to the High Court for Trusts Act ‘blessing’ to their proposal, trustees said they intend to hold back some assets from sale.

Payment in kind rather than cash might be more tax advantageous for some beneficiaries.

For others, the Trust might pay their tax bill out of trust assets.

Despite the lack of finality as to how assets might be distributed, Justice Boldt gave his blessing.   

The proposal is balanced and properly reflects the interests of beneficiaries, he said.

The consultation process has been robust and detailed, he added.

re ‘Generations Family Trust’ – High Court (15.04.26)

26.138

Employment: Robertson Motors v. Renner

  

Sales manager Ian Renner was ordered to pay $900,000 damages for lost sales incurred by employer Palmerston North motor vehicle dealer Robertson Isuzu after he plotted to poach customers in advance of his 2023 resignation.

Mr Renner breached legal duties of fidelity, good faith and loyalty owed any employer, the Employment Court ruled.

On a salary of $65,000 plus ten per cent sale commissions at time of his departure, Mr Renner had worked for Robertson Isuzu since 2004.

Evidence was given of Mr Renner being the driving force behind a Robertson Isuzu 2016 exclusive dealership negotiated with Japanese company ShinMaywa, supplier of truck add-ons such as rubbish compactors, side-tippers and side-loaders.

Waste Management (NZ) became a major Robertson Isuzu customer.   

The court was told of Roberston Isuzu being blind-sided by Mr Renner’s July 2023 resignation.  He was on sick leave at the time, prior to major surgery.

Only then through comment from customers did it learn Mr Renner personally had become ShinMaywa’s point of contact in New Zealand. 

Robertson Isuzu’s analysis of his work devices found evidence of his email discussions with both ShinMaywa and Robertson Isuzu clients prior to his resignation, setting up Mr Renner to become ShinMaywa’s New Zealand representative.

In the Employment Court, Mr Renner challenged use of this evidence.  These devices had been uplifted from his home while on sick leave, without disclosing that Robertson Isuzu planned to have the contents forensically examined, he said.  

It is not necessary for an employer to be completely candid about inquiries it is making into an employee’s conduct, Judge Holden said.  It was reasonable for Robertson Isuzu to uplift the devices without alerting Mr Renner, she said.  Isuzu Robertson owned the devices.

It was not a breach of confidentiality for Mr Renner to share Isuzu Robertson customer email addresses with both ShinMaywa and his new clients.  These addresses were already a matter of common knowledge; previously displayed as multiple address lists in Robertson Isuzu mailouts.

Mr Renner undermined Robertson Isuzu’s business in the four month period prior to his resignation, Judge Holden ruled.

He took steps to have himself appointed ShinMaywa’s New Zealand representative and represented to Robertson Isuzu clients that Robertson Isuzu would be in no position to deal with their orders after his resignation.

One week after Mr Renner’s resignation, ShinMawa contacted Robertson Isuzu advising that its exclusive dealership rights were cancelled, asking Robertson Isuzu to ‘confirm’ the change.

Attempts by Robertson Isuzu to negotiate with ShinMaywa were ignored.

Robertson Isuzu claimed it had suffered losses totalling $2.24 million, on the assumption its exclusive dealership would have run at least until 2030.

Judge Holden awarded $900,000 damages as ‘loss of a chance;’ an assessment of profits Robertson Isuzu would have made if Mr Renner had complied with a restraint of trade in his employment contract prohibiting him from soliciting existing customers for six months following resignation.

This figure is to be reduced by amounts still owed Mr Renner for commission earned on vehicles sold while employed at Robertson Isuzu; set at $75,800 in a preliminary assessment.

Mr Renner has been free to compete against his former employer since his six month restraint of trade ended.

Robertson Motors v. Renner – Employment Court (14.04.26)

26.137

Estate: Greaves v. Bright

  

Disliking terms of her late mother’s will, joint executor Angela Bright set about reallocating which beneficiary would get what, causing the High Court to remove her as executor.

Her mother died in 2022, naming Angela and fellow sibling Sydney Greaves as estate executors.

Their family home at Kaitaia in Northland is the estate’s major asset.  Sharing equally as beneficiaries under their mother’s 2015 will are her four adult children: Angela, Sydney, Laurie and Myrtle.

The High Court was told Angela favours their mother’s earlier 2004 will which does not name Sydney as a beneficiary.  Sydney was not included as a beneficiary in the earlier will because their mother considered gifts already made to him were sufficient, Angela said.

Angela alleges Sydney connived with their mother to be added back in as a beneficiary in the later 2015 will.

In the High Court, Justice O’Gorman said there had been no formal challenge to the 2015 will.

As one of the two executors, Angela set about undermining terms of this will: allowing brother Laurie to shift into the family home rent free (to protect estate assets, she said); and refusing to have the property listed for sale (preventing Sydney from receiving his one-quarter share of the estate).

Using Trusts Act powers, Justice O’Gorman removed Angela as executor, ruling her removal was ‘necessary and desirable’ to ensure their mother’s estate was properly administered.

Brother Sydney is now the sole executor.

Greaves v. Bright – High Court (14.04.26)

26.136

Construction: Veloce Ltd v. Northpower Ltd

  

General complaints of poor workmanship are insufficient without some estimate of remediation costs as Northpower found to its cost in a ‘pay now, argue later’ Construction Contracts Act claim; ordered to pay Tauranga engineering sub-contractor Veloce Ltd $270,000 for disputed undergrounding work, part of a Coromandel fibre rollout.

Northpower claims Veloce is owed nothing, alleging a raft of construction faults will cost more than $270,000 to repair.

Infrastructure company Northpower Ltd is head contractor in a Powerco project building a fibre network across Coromandel peninsular.  It farmed out part of the project to civil engineers Veloce.

The District Court was told of multiple complaints about Veloce’s work: trenches not on the correct layline or the correct depth; ducts not properly aligned; and manholes not in the correct location.

Powerco advised Northpower of the rework required.  Northpower forwarded these emails to Veloce.    

When Northpower stopped paying Veloce invoices, legal formalities in the Construction Contracts Act came into play.

The Act is intended to protect sub-contractors’ cash flow, curbing a common commercial practice of head contractors refusing to pay any part of a sub-contractor’s invoice while disputing some minor component of the work done.

The Act imposes a sequential dance for payment disputes: sub-contractors submit an invoice labelled as a ‘Construction Contracts Act payment claim;’ the head contractor counters with a ‘payment schedule’ identifying how much it is willing to pay and an explanation for the difference.

Failure to respond promptly, or properly, means the payment claim is payable immediately without deduction: pay now, argue later.

There had been no valid payment schedule response by Northpower after it received the disputed $270,000 payment claim, Judge Davey ruled.

Northpower merely forwarded to Veloce Powerco’s schedule of required re-work and baldly stated that Northpower owed Veloce nothing.

When Veloce made no progress on the work demanded, Northpower fired it from the job.

Veloce claims some of the work demanded amounts to a variation of the original contract.

Judge Davey ruled Northpower was liable to pay Veloce’s $269,500 invoice immediately.

For a valid ‘payment schedule’ response, Northpower should have quantified what was in dispute.  It was not enough to simply state that cost of making good all the disputed workmanship would exceed the invoiced payment claimed.

Sufficient detail is required for a contractor to identify how much is in dispute, Judge Davey ruled.

Veloce Ltd v. Northpower Ltd – District Court (13.04.26)

26.135

Trustee: Toothill v. Hakaraia

  

Removed as trustee of Hakaraia Trust operating a dairy and drystock farm on Maori land near Mangakino on the western side of Lake Taupo, Vanessa Hakaraia was criticised by the Maori Land Court for her aggressive and combative behaviour, disrupting trust governance.

A high standard of behaviour is required from trustees exercising oversight of commercial entities, otherwise trust beneficiaries suffer, Judge Warren ruled.

Hakaraia Trust is a Te Ture Whenua Maori Act ahu whenua trust.

The court was told Ms Hakaraia was voted in as a trustee in Maori Land Court-supervised elections in November 2025.

Her suitability was immediately challenged; confirmation as trustee approved by the Court only after a judicial settlement conference saw widely-respected lawyer Glenn Toothill put in place as a court-appointed independent trustee with sole authority to liaise with employees and Trust contractors. 

Evidence was given of Ms Hakaraia ignoring this court order; dealing directly with contractors and employees, which included vituperative text exchanges between herself and one trust employee.

Disputes reached a head with both Ms Hakaraia and Mr Toothill applying to the Maori Land Court to have the other removed as trustee.

Ms Hakaraia was removed.

She had ignored court orders.  With trustees jointly and severally liable for trust actions, her behaviour was putting other trustees at personal financial risk, Judge Warren said.

If she does not get things her own way, Ms Hakaraia only knows one way to react, very negatively and on occasions destructively, Judge Warren commented.

Trust decision-making is dysfunctional, with Ms Hakaraia playing a significant part in that dysfunction, he ruled.   

She was removed as trustee, with immediate effect.

Toothill v. Hakaraia – Maori Land Court (13.04.26)

26.134

Ethical Investing: Nazzal v. Guardians of NZ Superannuation

  

The sins of the world are being levied against New Zealand’s $86 billion Superannuation Fund with the High Court ruling it acted ‘unreasonably and unlawfully’ in failing to clearly delineate investment policies necessary to avoid prejudice to New Zealand’s reputation as a responsible world member.

The somewhat Orwellian-named Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation Fund have been engaged in a long-running dialogue with lobby group Palestinian Solidarity Network as it seeks to block any Fund investments in businesses considered complicit in human rights abuses across occupied Palestinian territories.  

Set up in 2001 by then Minster of Finance Sir Michael Cullen, the Fund is intended to smooth costs of future superannuation commitments.

Investment policy is left to Fund Guardians, but the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act requires that investments avoid prejudice to the nation’s reputation.

In the High Court, activists successfully claimed the Fund failed to give proper consideration to their demand that specific named investments be sold.

The court was told lobbying by Palestinian Solidarity saw the Guardians previously exclude five Israeli banks from its investment portfolio in 2021.

In 2024, the Fund refused further requests by Palestinian Solidarity that it divest investments in Airbnb (an $18.2 million investment), Booking.com ($48.5 million), Expedia ($467,000) and Motorola ($123.3 million).

Solidarity said these companies are listed on a database compiled by the UN Commissioner of Human Rights as businesses connected to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories.

It applied to the High Court for judicial review of Fund investment policies.

Judicial review does not investigate the merits of a decision; it looks at the process by which the decision was made.  

Justice Mount ruled the Fund’s existing investment policies did not set ascertainable benchmarks or standards against which New Zealand’s reputation could be measured.  Standards need not be prescriptive, but they should not imply unconstrained discretion, he said.

There was also a lack of clarity about who will make investment decisions and how and when they will do so, Justice Mount said.

There was evidence of the Guardians progressively re-writing internal policy documents over time, making them less prescriptive, in the face of on-going lobbying by Palestinian Solidarity.   

Justice Mount said Palestinian Solidarity had standing to challenge the Fund’s investment process, ensuring public money is not invested in a way that harms New Zealand’s reputation.

He recommended, as a matter of natural justice, that companies named in future be given an opportunity to respond before any decision to remove them from the Fund’s investment portfolio.

Nazzal v. Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation – High Court (13.04.26)

26.133

Billboard Lease: Go Media v. Wright Barry

  

The economic dispute is about market rent for a billboard sited in a prominent position beside the Mount Maunganui bridge flyover in Tauranga on a lease running to 2038, with Go Media currently charged annual rent of $20,000.  The legal dispute is about alleged chicanery by landowner Wright Barry Family Trust cancelling the current billboard lease to force a new lease with increased annual rental at $100,000.

In the High Court, Justice Andrew imposed an interim injunction allowing rentals to continue temporarily at $20,000.  A full court hearing is needed to resolve Go Media’s claims of misrepresentation by Wright Barry.

The High Court was told Go Media first took up lease rights for the digital billboard in 2018.  The site on Newton Road then operated as a car sales yard.

In 2023, the then owner sold the site to Wright Barry Family Trust, taking ownership subject to Go Media’s existing billboard lease.

Within weeks of assuming ownership, Wright Barry gave notice the billboard lease was cancelled, pointing to a ‘redevelopment’ clause in the billboard lease allowing cancellation should it be in the way of any proposed redevelopment.

Within a month, Go Media was offered a new two year ‘temporary’ lease at $100,000 per annum on grounds there would be a short delay with redevelopment plans.

Go Media stood its ground, claiming there was no genuine redevelopment underway.

Nearly eighteen months later, Wright Barry again gave notice of cancellation; supported this time with notice of planning consent sought for a new building on site and copy of a lease to Hireace as new tenant.

Go Media surrendered rights to its current billboard site following an agreement allowing it rights of first refusal should Wright Barry later have space available for a new billboard.

Evidence was given of Go Media subsequently negotiating directly with Hireace for a slight variation to its planned build, enabling the existing billboard to remain.  Go Media offered Hireace free advertising, part of a ‘contra deal,’ encouraging Hireace’s approval for changes accommodating the existing billboard.

Go Media claims Wright Barry Family Trust is in breach of the Contract and Commercial Law Act and the Fair Trading Act.  It alleges Wright Barry misrepresented, at the time Go Media surrendered its lease, the possibility of Go Media’s existing billboard site remaining available despite Hireace’s site redevelopment.

Go Media says it was told by Shaun Barry that after Hireace’s rebuild ‘there won’t be a metre to spare on the property.’

It alleges Wright Barry trustees deliberately engineered a redevelopment triggering cancellation while knowing the existing billboard could be accommodated.

Go Media is suing to have the original billboard lease reinstated.

Go Media Bacbou Ltd v. Wright Barry Family Trust – High Court (13.04.26)

26.132

Life Interest: Bevin v. Winders

  

Descendants of David Te Au were removed from the record as part of owners of land in Southland and related mutton-bird customary rights after identifying errors on the Maori Land Court record from 1965; as a whangai adoption, son Thomas had no right to inherit and his adoptive father’s will specifically restricted his inheritance to lifetime use of a family holiday home at Colac Bay.

By Maori custom, land held in customary ownership passes to blood descendants.  The Maori Land Court holds records for ownership shares in Maori land.  On death of each part-owner, descendants apply to the Court for recognition as added part owners on proof of their whakapapa links.

A Maori Land Court hearing in February 1965, on death of David Te Au, was told he left five children: four his natural children; the other, Thomas, a son adopted in an informal whangai adoption.

As the law then stood, whangai adoptions were not recognised for land succession.  Despite this rule, Thomas was added to the record as a part-owner, with apparent consent of the other four children.

Sixty years on, this process was challenged.

The Maori Land Court removed Thomas as part-owner.

Confusion in 1965 apparently flowed from wording in their father’s will describing Thomas as ‘adopted.’  The word was used in a colloquial sense; it was an informal whangai adoption, not a formal Adoption Act adoption.

Chief Judge Fox amended the land records using powers in the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act.

The only customary rights inherited by Thomas was a life interest in the Colac Bay dwelling.

Bevin v. Winders – Maori Land Court (8.04.26)

26.131

Relationship Property: 'Darwin v. Garner'

  

By any measure it was an unusual relationship: a 26 year marriage in which the two lived apart for 21 years, coming together as a family most weekends and for holidays.  A later relationship property spat over assets valued at some four million dollars saw a nine year difference between the two as to the date their relationship ended, leading to a disputed variance in value of assets to be divided.

The two met as law students in Auckland during the 1980s.

Names were supressed in the publicly issued Family Court judgment.

The court was told they worked overseas for three years before returning to Auckland in 1995.

He subsequently got a job with a law firm outside Auckland; she preferred to remain.

Over the next two decades, he worked as a law firm partner away from Auckland, visiting Auckland most weekends where their two children stayed with their mother.  She did not return to legal practice.

Assets accumulated from his income included houses at each of their locations, plus a share in a holiday home.  They holidayed as a family, both in New Zealand and overseas.

Evidence was given of the husband paying expenses for both houses, household expenses for his spouse and family in Auckland including education expenses for their children.

She was paid a monthly $800 allowance, stopped when he later learnt through a mutual friend that she was now in paid employment at a business owned by one of her relatives.

Their marriage was dissolved in 2024.

Valuation of relationship property was hampered by differing views as to when their relationship ended.

She said it was 2021; the date her lawyers wrote to her husband formally announcing their marriage was over.

He said it was 2012; when he was firmly committed to living out of Auckland with partnership at a new law firm he shifted to.  Alternatively, it was 2017/18 he said; a time when emails between the two arguing over payment of family expenses saw his spouse signalling that she was looking to finalise their arrangement with a relationship property claim. 

Judge von Keisenberg ruled it was 2018.

Living separately for extended periods, by itself is not evidence of legal ‘separation;’ couples can still be committed to each other and their relationship.

But by 2018, increasingly angry emails containing phrases such as ‘I want you out of my life’ and ‘How do you wish to proceed with the divorce?’ signalled their relationship was over.

The nature of their relationship and continuing financial contributions made by the husband after their 2018 separation complicated relationship property calculations. 

The wife was entitled to a Property (Relationship) Act payment for ‘economic disparity;’ her loss of otherwise potential income arising from her role in primarily caring for their children.  The monetary value of this opportunity cost was assessed at $384,000 after deduction of an allowance for post-separation relationship expenses paid by the husband.

It was agreed property held in family trusts would be treated as if it were relationship property; these assets had been funded from the husband’s earnings: relationship property.

Relationship assets and trust assets were split 50/50; each given full ownership of the property they occupied, with cash adjustments to equalise values.

The husband has to bear any tax consequences of their two family trusts being unravelled, Judge von Keisenberg ruled.

‘Darwin v. Garner’ – Family Court (7.04.26)

26.130

Insurance: McConnachie v. BOP Regional Council

  

Competing law suits against Bay of Plenty Regional Council claiming damages in excess of seventy million dollars for damage to Edgecumbe homes following flooding in 2017 saw the High Court allow insurers’ subrogated claims led by IAG go to trial, a proposed class action promoted by Australasian litigators Shine Lawyers disallowed.

There is no love lost between the insurance industry and class action litigators.

BOP Region had already signalled which of the two adversaries it prefers to face; allowing multiple insurers to join IAG’s litigation against BOP Region even though they were technically out of time.

The High Court was told IAG Insurance, Vero Insurance, AA Insurance, Tower and QBE Insurance (Australia) have collectively paid out some 490 policyholders for damage to their Edgecumbe properties after a Rangitaiki River stopbank was breached in April 2017 following cyclone Debbie.

Exercising rights of subrogation, these insurers are suing BOP Regional Council seeking to recover their losses.  Subrogation is the legal rule allowing insurers to ‘stand in the shoes’ of customers paid out on an insurance policy, enforcing whatever legal rights the customer may have in order to recover what are now the insurer’s losses.

BOP Region is responsible for flood management, charging property owners a differential levy.  Insurers allege negligence, nuisance and breach of statutory duty by BOP Region.  It denies liability.

Separate from insurers’ claim for compensation, Shine Lawyers has signed up 550 prospective plaintiffs in a class action similarly seeking compensation from BOP Region.  There is considerable double-counting, with about three-quarters of Shine Lawyers’ clients being property owners who have previously received insurance payouts.    

At its simplest: a successful claim by affected insurers against BOP Region sees these insurers recovering part or all of insurance claims paid out; a successful claim by Shine Lawyers sees its clients getting a share of whatever financial payout is recovered.

A win for either of these two plaintiffs requires either a favourable court ruling or successful negotiations with BOP Region and its insurer.

As part of pre-trial procedures, the High Court was asked to rule how each claim could continue, or whether they should be combined.  This pre-trial hearing descended into a slanging match with rival plaintiffs denigrating the other’s case.

The insurers claim does no more than recover their claim costs, with no further benefit for either insured or uninsured property owners, Shine Lawyers said.

Shine Lawyers claim is riddled with conflicts of interest, insurers said.  In particular, Shine has an incentive to settle out of court in circumstances and at a time which best ensure Shine maximises its fees on time spent plus its agreed twenty per cent share of any payout.  Plus, Shine’s clients could be facing up-front costs even if there were never any payout, insurers claim.

Associate Judge Taylor allowed the insurers’ claim to continue.

It is arguable that these insurers could additionally claim for property owners uninsured losses, providing further compensation for insured property owners, he said.

Shine Lawyers strongly dispute whether it is legally possible for insurers exercising their rights of subrogation to recover more than the amount paid out on a claim.

Shine argued insurers have conjured up a non-existent right labelled equitable subrogation to bolster their argument that more than claim costs can be recovered.

Judge Taylor dismissed Shine Lawyers proposed class action application.

Most of the property owners affected will likely best benefit from their claims for uninsured losses being advanced by their insurers with legal costs carried by these insurers, he ruled.

McConnachie v. Bay of Plenty Regional Council and IAG New Zealand Ltd v. Bay of Plenty Regional Council – High Court (2.04.26)

26.126

Asset Forfeiture: Commissioner of Police v. Linton

  

Part payment of a $761,800 criminal profit confiscation imposed on convicted Christchurch Tribesmen gang member Matthew John Linton was met with cash seized on his arrest; the $566,000 balance sits as a suspended penalty, potentially able to be called in at a later date after conclusion of his 2025 three years and one month prison sentence for money laundering.

The High Court was told Linton acted as bag man, holding cash generated by Tribesmen affiliates dealing in methamphetamine and cocaine.  He is a patched member of the gang.

At time of his arrest, police seized cash stored at his New Brighton home, in two of his vehicles and at a Riccarton storage unit rented in name of his then partner.  She disavowed any claim to the $133,800 cash at the storage unit.

Linton pleaded guilty to charges of money-laundering.

Most of the money has disappeared, untraceable, into off-shore gambling accounts.

He did not contest the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act profit forfeiture order.

For Police, the tactical benefit of seeking a profit forfeiture order against Linton is that future recovery can be made against any assets he comes to later own, not just assets proved to be tainted by purchase with criminally obtained funds.

Commissioner of Police v. Linton – High Court (2.04.26)

26.129

Fraud: Worksafe v. Mansfield

  

A series of cleverly forged compliance certificates were discovered only by accident, traced back to a fraudulent 2017 sign-off for installation of a diesel storage tank at a South Auckland police station.  Police estimate work across five different affected police stations will cost $300,000 to remediate; Philip John Mansfield was convicted of fraud, sentenced to five months community detention requiring him to remain at home 7.00 pm to 7.00 am seven days a week.  

The District Court was told Mansfield had a good reputation within the industry prior to his offending, primarily for construction and installation of storage tanks at petrol stations through his Palmerston North based company, Mansfield Installations Ltd.

He later concentrated on commercial installation of smaller diesel tanks.

Evidence was given of his taking shortcuts in certification sign-offs when disputing application of new rules imposed on the industry.

When one certifier refused to sign off, Mansfield created a forged certificate.

Over the next six years he forged eight compliance certificates with false signatures fraudulently certifying work as compliant.

The fraud was discovered only after his work on a job for the National Library in Whanganui was later queried and the supposed certifier disavowed all knowledge.  Mansfield had fraudulently altered a compliance certificate for another job, this other certificate itself being a forgery.

With Mansfield now aged 65, Judge Warburton ruled community detention was the most appropriate sentence.

Worksafe New Zealand v. Mansfield – District Court (2.04.26)

26.128

Kainga Ora: Albert v. Kainga Ora

  

Determined to stay living at Kainga Ora accommodation in Auckland following death of his mother, Jonathan Albert’s claim that the property had become Maori customary land he was entitled to inherit was dismissed by the Maori Land Court.

Ellen Albert died in October 2025, while a residential tenant at a Kainga Ora property on Beatrix Street in Avondale.  Family members, including son Jonathon, lived with her.

Jonathan refused to leave.

Tenancy Tribunal ruled the tenancy came to an end on Ellen’s death; Jonathon had to leave.

In the Maori Land Court, Jonathon argued that his mother’s Beatrix Street tenancy had evolved into a customary right protected by the Treaty of Waitangi Act.  As a blood relative, he had inherited these rights of occupation, Jonathon claimed.  He was entitled to an occupation licence in his name recording his rights of occupation, he told the court.

Evidence was given that Land Information title to Beatrix Street has been registered in name of the Crown since 1942 and specifically Housing New Zealand since 1981.

Land Transfer Act principles make it clear that Housing New Zealand has absolute rights of ownership by reason of title registration, Judge Williams ruled.

There was no evidence of any trust over the Beatrix Street property in favour of the Albert family, he said.

Jonathon’s application for an occupation licence was dismissed.

Albert v. Kainga Ora Homes and Communities – Maori Land Court (2.04.26)

26.127

Estate: Garrity v. Hall

  

After matriarch Maria Te Kaha Morgan was stabbed and killed in her Ngaruawahia home by a mentally-ill grandson, strained family relationships hampered attempts to resolve her estate.  It took legal proceedings to force action, but not resolution.

Maria’s death at age 72 in tragic circumstances left her children with divided loyalties, their emotions immediately after the event described in court as ‘still raw, still vulnerable, still hurt and angry.’

Maria left four children: Nancy, Leroy, Francis and Lillian.

Francis’ son killed their mother.

At an emotional family gathering after their mother’s tangi it was agreed Nancy would take the lead, being appointed under the Administration Act to take control of their mother’s estate.  Nancy is not a biological daughter; adopted in a Maori customary whangai adoption.   

A wish to keep their Cavan Street family home within the family resulted in Nancy suggesting the property be offered to the four siblings on a ‘first come first served’ basis at $450,000; a market valuation obtained the previous year.

Daughter Lillian agreed to buy.

She later asked that title be taken jointly with brother Francis.

Estate lawyers became frustrated with failures by both to sign the necessary paperwork.     

The High Court was told Francis shifted into the property mid-2024.  He has not been paying rent.

As administrator, Nancy asked for a High Court order removing Francis from the property so it could be sold, with net proceeds divided between the four children.

Francis attended the court hearing.

He agreed to leave Cavan Street.

Associate Judge Sussock formally recorded that Nancy as administrator was entitled to vacant possession.

Judge Sussock did not immediately allow an estate demand that Francis pay rent for the period he was in occupation plus legal costs to date of some $19,000 incurred to force him out.

These issues require a full defended hearing, she said.

Judge Sussock offered to assist with an out-of-court judicial settlement conference with family members to avoid the legal expense of a full trial.

Garrity v. Hati – High Court (1.04.26)

26.125

Lease Renewal: Creative Edge Food v. Hunza Corporate

  

Hunza’s Andrew Cunningham seized on a tenant’s delay in requesting a lease renewal as grounds to clear the tenancy; a move blocked by the High Court allowing a lease renewal, ruling past niggles between landlord and tenant were in part Hunza Corporate’s fault as landlord.

The High Court was told Hunza Corporate Trustee Ltd in 2023 bought out the then landlord’s interest over a commercial property on Elizabeth Knox Place in Auckland suburb St Johns.

This purchase included a sitting tenant: Creative Edge Food Company Ltd controlled by Farhan Sittar, with a long-term lease potentially running to 2031.

Creative Edge operates a commercial bakery.      

Evidence was given of Hunza Corporate offering Creative Edge $80,000 to surrender its lease and leave; an offer later withdrawn.

Hunza instead looked to push Creative Edge out.

Threats to cancel the lease on grounds that the site was not being kept tidy and that one invoiced payment was late came to nothing after Creative Edge promptly complied.

A rent increase imposed by Hunza was challenged, with an arbitrator later reducing the claimed increased rent to an assessed market rate some five per cent below what Hunza was claiming. 

Creative Edge’s lease has three-year rolling rights of renewal expiring in 2031.

The High Court was told Mr Sittar inadvertently failed to give formal notice before July 2025 seeking a further three year rollover.  Hunza immediately claimed the lease was at an end, suing for possession when Creative Edge refused to leave.

Justice O’Gorman allowed Creative Edge’s Property Law Act application, requiring Hunza Corporate to allow a renewal.

There was no evidence that Creative Edge would be unable to meet continuing lease commitments on a lease renewal, she ruled.

To date, monthly rent had been paid on time.  Late payments had centred on sundry disputes over Creative Edge’s contribution to landlord’s costs for general rates, water rates and body corporate expenses.

Hunza also owns the neighbouring property.

Creative Edge claims allocation of landlord expenses between the two properties is being wrongly allocated.  It also disputes liability on some billed invoices with evidence Hunza was wrongly billing extra GST to Creative Edge on what were GST inclusive landlord costs.     

Hunza Corporate was ordered to allow Creative Edge a new three year lease on same terms as the previous lease.

Creative Edge Food Company Ltd v. Hunza Corporate Trustee Ltd – High Court (1.04.26)

26.124