Re Reynolds - Official Assignee V Wilson And Another [2007] NZCA 122
Facts and Decision
Mr Reynolds (the "Settlor") was the settlor of the GM
Reynolds Family Trust (the "Trust") under which he
appointed Messrs Wilson and Harvey as trustees (the
"Trustees"). A property was acquired (the "First
Property"), the title to which was registered in the name of
the Trustees and subject to a mortgage guaranteed by the Settlor
personally. The Trustees subsequently sold the First Property to
the Settlor. The Settlor then entered into a contract on behalf of
the Trust to acquire a further property (the "Second
Property"), which required substantial further borrowing. The
Settlor offered the First Property for sale, but the sale did not
occur until after the acquisition of the Second Property and after
the Settlor (having defaulted on the mortgage) had been declared
bankrupt. The proceeds of the sale of the First Property were
applied towards reducing the loans outstanding against the Second
Property. The Trust was never administered well and there was
intermingling and confusion between the affairs of the Trust and of
the Settlor.
The Official Assignee in bankruptcy of the Settlor (standing in
the shoes of the Settlor) claimed against the Trustees, as legal
owners of the Second Property, that the property should vest for
the benefit of the Settlor's creditors in bankruptcy. The claim
was based on the grounds that the Trust was a sham, or
alternatively, an "alter ego" of the Settlor. The High
Court of New Zealand dismissed the claim and the Official Assignee
appealed to the Court of Appeal of New Zealand (the "Court of
Appeal").
The Court of Appeal considered two principal arguments as to the
invalidity of the Trust. First, that the Trust was a sham and,
secondly, that the Trust was the "alter ego" of the
Settlor. In upholding the Trust and unanimously dismissing the
appeal, the Court of Appeal considered that the requirement for
common intention was of central significance in assessing whether
the trust was a sham. Further, the Court of Appeal concluded that
alter ego trusts are not an independent cause of action. In the
trust context, alter ego arguments are confined to helping
establish a sham, or may give rise to a breach of trust.
The main points arising from the Court of Appeal's judgment
are summarised below.
Sham Trusts
A sham trust exists where there is an intention to conceal the
true nature of a transaction under the guise of a trust. In order
for a valid trust to be created the three certainties must be
...
To continue reading
Request your trial