Mr Jamieson died in 2001 and his wife died in 2012. Ms Jamieson was the sole director and shareholder of Lambie Trustee Ltd. The original trustees, including Mr Jamieson and Mr Palmer, were replaced by others over the next decade and ultimately by Lambie Trustee Ltd in 2006. He was also the nominal settlor of the Lambie Trust, and he transferred the shares in the Howick development to the trust in 1991. Title to the property was held nominally by Robert Palmer, a nephew of Mr Jamieson. Mr Jamieson then made a substantial investment in a property near Auckland, the Howick development, which became very profitable in due course. With her father’s assistance, she sued the local municipality for negligence and was awarded more that 1 million AUD in damages. The background to the case was that at age 19 Ms Jamieson suffered a catastrophic accident in 1972, when she dove into a public pool in Australia, hit the bottom with her head, and became a paraplegic. And of the remainder, 50% was to be paid to Ms Jamieson and 25% each to Ms Addleman and Meredith.
Of the balance of the fund, 40%, but not more than 10 million NZD were to be set aside for charitable objects. Jamieson’s memorandum of wishes made in 2000, a fund of 2 million NZD was to be set aside for Anthony. The two younger Jamieson children, Anthony and Meredith, were not beneficiaries, but in Mr. The discretionary beneficiaries were the final beneficiaries, any child or remoter issue, wife, husband, widow or widower of any final beneficiary, and any lawful charitable object. The trust was scheduled to end 80 years after it was created. The final beneficiaries of the trust were Ms Addleman, Ms Jamieson, and two companies controlled by Mr Jamieson. It concerned a discretionary trust, the Lambie Trust, that was established in 1990. The case arose out of a dispute between two sisters, Prudence Addleman and Annette Jamieson. Ercig, which I reproduce later in this blog, will undoubtedly be of assistance to counsel in new cases. So too, the list of factors to be considered in such cases that the court previously outlined in the leading case, Ercig v. I believe that the discussion and general principles will be helpful in many cases in which beneficiaries seek disclosure by trustees. Addleman, provides a very helpful discussion of the general principles that apply when a beneficiary seeks disclosure of legal opinions and other advice obtained by the trustees. But a recent decision by the New Zealand Supreme Court, Lambie Trustee Limited v. Such cases are, of course, restricted to their factual matrix. This is an issue that comes back before the courts on a regular basis. In it I argued that older cases, which held that beneficiaries hold a proprietary right to trust documents and are thus entitled to have them disclosed, have been superseded by more recent cases. A year ago, I wrote a blog on the topic of disclosure of information by trustees.
0 kommentar(er)
