Edmonds Judd

FPA

Decision in ‘Alphabet case’ could change succession landscape

Kids, Property, Relationships, Trusts
0

Significant issues raised

In June 2023, the Supreme Court heard the ‘Alphabet case.’ To understand the significance of what is at stake in this case, it is worth considering the facts that gave rise to the litigation and the High Court’s decision.

 

Abuse of A, B and C by Mr Z

Mr Z and Ms J married in 1958 and separated in 1981. They had four children: G (1960-2015), A (b 1961), B (b 1963) and C (b 1971).

Mr Z severely abused Ms J and the children physically, psychologically and sexually. A was repeatedly raped between the ages of seven and 13, but she did not disclose the abuse to anyone until 1983. She did not tell her mother until 1991. A was unable to face taking action against Mr Z.

Mr Z died in 2016 leaving an estate valued at $46,839. He had, however, settled a trust two years previously for the express purpose of preventing his family from “chasing” his assets, to which he had gifted his home and investments worth $700,000. The children were not beneficiaries of Mr Z’s estate or the trust; rather, the trust’s beneficiaries were the children of Mr Z’s former partner.

 

Children’s claims

That should have been the end of the matter because the Family Protection Act 1955 (FPA), that allows children to challenge their parents’ wills, only applies to assets a deceased owned in their personal names; it doesn’t apply to trust assets.

However, the children argued that their father owed them a fiduciary duty and, that because of the abuse, he continued to have obligations to them even after they became adults. They said that Mr Z had breached that duty when he gifted his home and shares to the trust in order to prevent his children from claiming against those assets under the FPA.

 

In the High Court

In the High Court,[1] Justice Gwyn agreed with the children and said they could bring claims under the FPA against the assets that had been transferred to the trust.

The trustees of Mr Z’s estate and trust appealed to the Court of Appeal.

 

Court of Appeal divided over case

The Court of Appeal[2] accepted that Mr Z owed a fiduciary duty to his children and that he breached that duty when he abused them. The issue was whether Mr Z continued to owe those fiduciary duties to his adult children at the time he gifted his assets to the trust.

The majority of the Court of Appeal judges disagreed; they said that the appropriate remedy for the breach of fiduciary duty was equitable compensation (and the children had run out of time to make that claim).

However, one judge said that in some circumstances the inherently fiduciary relationship between a parent and a child may continue after a child becomes an adult (for example, in the case of a severely disabled child).

The judge (who was in the minority, so their views don’t affect the final outcome) decided that A’s position, owing to the abuse she suffered, was analogous to that of a disabled child. Mr Z therefore had a continuing duty to take steps to remedy, as best he could, the enormous harm he inflicted on A, not only when she was living in his care, but also during her adult life. This meant he was required to protect her interests when considering gifting his principal assets to the trust, and failed to do so.

 

Decision awaited

The Supreme Court will tell us whether Mr Z owed a continuing fiduciary duty to A into her adult life because of the abuse he perpetrated on her. Many commentators believe that it is stretching the concept of a child/parent fiduciary duty too far.

If legal principles cannot evolve, however, a situation may emerge where extraordinarily meritorious claimants are left with no effective relief, simply because too much time has passed, and/or because their parent transferred their assets into a trust to prevent claims after they have died.

That raises two questions:

  1. Should time count against people such as A, who have been so seriously abused by a parent?
  2. Should parents be allowed to transfer their assets into a trust in order to prevent their children making claims after their death?

[1] [2021] NZHC 2997.

[2] [2022] NZCA 430.

 

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Trust eSpeaking is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Trust eSpeaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Copyright, NZ LAW Limited, 2022.     Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected].       Ph: 029 286 3650

Business briefs

First Job, Latest news, Your Own Business
0

Fair Pay Agreements Bill on the table

The long-awaited Fair Pay Agreements Bill was recently introduced in Parliament proposing a framework for collective bargaining of fair pay agreements (FPA).

What is an FPA? An FPA is an agreement that establishes mandatory minimum employment terms (such as wages or hours of work) across an entire industry or occupation that exceed the minimum entitlements outlined in employment law. Currently, an employer and employee are free to negotiate the terms of employment without being subject to fair pay obligations, provided the minimum entitlements in employment law are met.

What is the FPA process? A union initiates the bargaining process by applying to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). If MBIE approves the application, the union begins bargaining with an employer association (that represents employers in the relevant industry).

What does this mean for employers? If the negotiation is successful, all the employers in an industry covered by an FPA would have to provide their employees with at least the minimum entitlements required by the FPA, regardless of whether the employer engaged in the bargaining process.

The Bill also proposes granting employees and unions other rights such as the right for a union to enter a workplace without an employer’s consent to meet with employees to discuss FPAs. This may be confronting to some employers, particularly smaller businesses that may be new to collective bargaining.

Next steps: Public submissions on the Bill closed on 19 May 2022, so we now await the Select Committee’s report. The Bill is expected to become law by the end of 2022.

Proposed legislation to address modern slavery and worker exploitation

The government has released a consultation paper proposing new legislation to reduce modern slavery and worker exploitation in New Zealand and internationally. As currently proposed, the legislation may have a material impact on the way businesses operate in this country.

The paper defines ‘modern slavery’ as severe exploitation that a person cannot leave due to threats, violence or deception, including forced labour, debt bondage, forced marriage, slavery and human trafficking. ‘Worker exploitation’ is behaviour that causes material harm to the economic, social, physical or emotional well-being of a person, which essentially includes non-minor breaches of New Zealand employment standards (such as providing no less than minimum wage or annual holiday entitlements).

The legislation as proposed would require:

  • Organisations to take action if they become aware of modern slavery or worker exploitation in their operations or supply chains
  • Medium and large organisations to report on steps they are taking to address modern slavery or worker exploitation in their operations or supply chains, and
  • Large organisations to undertake due diligence to prevent, mitigate and remedy modern slavery and worker exploitation in their operations and supply chains.

Although this proposed legislation is not yet law, businesses should start considering now how these changes will affect the way they operate, and the consequences associated with any breach such as monetary penalties and reputational risk.

Incorporated societies – what’s next?

After many years of consultation and deliberation, the new Incorporated Societies Act 2022 was finally passed on 5 April 2022. The Act’s changes will affect all of New Zealand’s 23,000+ societies.

The legislation puts in place a modern framework of legal, governance and accountability obligations for incorporated societies and the people who run them.

All existing societies have at least until 1 December 2025 to ensure their constitution complies with the new requirements and to apply to re-register under the new Act. Societies that do not re-register by that date will be removed from the register.

Although the Act is now in place, there are still regulations to be developed before existing societies can start the re-registration process. These regulations are expected sometime in the next 12 months.

We can help if you are unsure of your obligations under the Act or would like some help with the transition.

 

Next stage of vaping legislation coming into effect

Changes made to New Zealand’s vaping laws are being phased in, with the next changes taking effect over the coming months. The latest changes require all packaging for smokeless tobacco products and vaping products containing nicotine to include specific labels warning of the health dangers and addictive nature of the products. Critical dates for this labelling are:

  • 11 May 2022: manufacturers and importers (should be achieved by now)
  • 25 June 2022: distributors, and
  • 11 August 2022: general and specialist vape retailers.

The staged approach is to allow for stock rotation of products with non-compliant packaging.

You can find more information on vaping regulation here or don’t hesitate to talk with us if you need some help.

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Commercial eSpeaking is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Commercial eSpeaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Copyright, NZ LAW Limited, 2021.     Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected].       Ph: 029 286 3650