Insights

Supreme Court Clarifies “Proper Purpose” Test for Trustee Appointments

The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal challenging the appointment of a corporate trustee in a significant trust law decision examining the boundaries of proper purpose in trustee appointments.

In Legler v Formannoij [2024] NZSC 173, the Court examined whether the appointment of a corporate trustee controlled by a beneficiary constituted a fraud on a power, or otherwise had a proper purpose. The case centred on the Kaahu Trust, established in 2008 with assets derived from Ricco Legler’s family wealth.

Following Mr Legler’s death in 2017, his widow Marina Formannoij became sole trustee after the retirement of an independent trustee company. She subsequently appointed Kaahu Trustee Limited (KT Ltd) – a company of which she was sole director – as corporate trustee.

The appellants, two of Mr Legler’s children, challenged this appointment, arguing it was made for an improper purpose – specifically to enable Ms Formannoij to benefit herself at their expense. However, by majority, the Supreme Court found insufficient evidence that Ms Formannoij had exercised the power of appointment for this purpose.

The majority emphasised that the Trust Deed expressly contemplated the appointment of a corporate trustee, even where a beneficiary held an interest in that trustee. They noted Ms Formannoij had made genuine attempts to find an independent replacement trustee before establishing KT Ltd.

In a significant dissent, Chief Justice Winkelmann would have allowed the appeal, finding the appointment was made to deliver complete control of the trust to Ms Formannoij – a purpose she considered improper given the Trust Deed’s emphasis on independent oversight in trustee decision-making.

The decision provides important guidance on the proper purpose doctrine in trust law, particularly regarding corporate trustees. It confirms that technical compliance with a trust deed’s terms will not automatically shield trustee appointments from challenge, but challengers must clearly establish improper purpose.

The case also highlights the importance of careful drafting in trust deeds regarding trustee appointment powers and the ongoing tension between beneficiary control and independent oversight in trust administration.

Richmond Chambers’ Josh McBride and Rachael Woods acted for the successful respondents.

Share this post with others

Related Posts

Q&A with Tim Clarke: Employment Law Specialist on the Government's Health & Safety Reforms

Q&A with Tim Clarke: Employment Law Specialist on the Government's Health & Safety Reforms

Richmond Chambers' employment law specialist Tim Clarke offers his insights on the Government's newly announced health and safety reforms. In this Q&A, Tim examines the potential impacts for New Zealand businesses, landowners, and workers as the ACT-National coalition delivers on its promise to reduce health and safety compliance costs while attempting to maintain workplace safety standards.

Environment Court Ruling Clears Path for Critical Renewable Energy Project

Environment Court Ruling Clears Path for Critical Renewable Energy Project

31 March 2025: Andrew Beatson of Richmond Chambers successfully represented Meridian Energy in securing consent this year for the 90MW Mt Munro Wind Farm, despite significant visual amenity challenges. The Environment Court's decision provides crucial guidance on effects assessment methodology and establishes valuable precedent for renewable energy projects at a pivotal time in New Zealand's energy transition.

Houston, we have a problem: the paradox of the self-dealing Kiwi trustee

Houston, we have a problem: the paradox of the self-dealing Kiwi trustee

11 March 2025: Richmond Chambers' Josh McBride and Rachael Woods, who represented the respondents in the recent Legler Supreme Court case, examine how two significant trust law judgments reveal a growing tension between the Trusts Act 2019 and the practical reality of New Zealand family trusts. 'The gap between judicial restraint and statutory opportunity creates a precarious position for settlor-trustees,' McBride cautions.

Our People