This article considers the New Zealand Court of Appeal decision in Clayton v Clayton, which concerned a relationship property dispute involving assets held in trusts. The authors provide a brief discussion of the relationship property claims that Mrs. Clayton made against Mr. Clayton’s various trusts. In particular, the authors focus on the Court of Appeal’s rulings that one of the trusts was not illusory but that Mr Clayton’s power to add and remove beneficiaries was property. The article concludes that this decision was incorrect with relation to relationship property law and trust law
In June 2009, at the Transcontinental Trusts conference in Geneva, His Honour Justice David Hayton s...
The Property (Relationships) Act 1976 is generally regarded as progressive and inclusive. The Act ap...
Deficiencies in the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA) have led to allegations of sham trusts, ...
This article considers the New Zealand Court of Appeal decision in Clayton v Clayton, which concerne...
In this article, the author reviews the first New Zealand Court of Appeal decision on the Property (...
This article is an examination of the interaction between trusts and relationship property in New Ze...
Trusts often have the effect of undermining the social aims of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976...
This article discusses the death provisions in the New Zealand Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PR...
Trusts emerge regularly in relationship property disputes and they are generally well understood to ...
This article discusses the reasoning of the High Court and Court of Appeal in Harvey v Beveridge in ...
The protective legislation which frequently resulted in assets held within a family trust being remo...
In June 2009, at the Transcontinental Trusts conference in Geneva, His Honour Justice David Hayton s...
This article considers the New Zealand High Court decision of Re Russell: Public Trust v Whyman, whi...
Scott v Williams concerned s 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. In situations of significa...
Trusts are very common in New Zealand, but they are increasingly detrimentally affecting the rights ...
In June 2009, at the Transcontinental Trusts conference in Geneva, His Honour Justice David Hayton s...
The Property (Relationships) Act 1976 is generally regarded as progressive and inclusive. The Act ap...
Deficiencies in the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA) have led to allegations of sham trusts, ...
This article considers the New Zealand Court of Appeal decision in Clayton v Clayton, which concerne...
In this article, the author reviews the first New Zealand Court of Appeal decision on the Property (...
This article is an examination of the interaction between trusts and relationship property in New Ze...
Trusts often have the effect of undermining the social aims of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976...
This article discusses the death provisions in the New Zealand Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PR...
Trusts emerge regularly in relationship property disputes and they are generally well understood to ...
This article discusses the reasoning of the High Court and Court of Appeal in Harvey v Beveridge in ...
The protective legislation which frequently resulted in assets held within a family trust being remo...
In June 2009, at the Transcontinental Trusts conference in Geneva, His Honour Justice David Hayton s...
This article considers the New Zealand High Court decision of Re Russell: Public Trust v Whyman, whi...
Scott v Williams concerned s 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. In situations of significa...
Trusts are very common in New Zealand, but they are increasingly detrimentally affecting the rights ...
In June 2009, at the Transcontinental Trusts conference in Geneva, His Honour Justice David Hayton s...
The Property (Relationships) Act 1976 is generally regarded as progressive and inclusive. The Act ap...
Deficiencies in the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA) have led to allegations of sham trusts, ...