Melanie Ann Clayton v Mark Arnold Clayton and others - SC 38/2015
Media releases
Summary
Result
B In relation to the Vaughan Road Property Trust (VRPT):
Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that there is no distinction between a sham trust and what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?
Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the VRPT was neither a sham trust nor what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?
If so:
Was the bundle of rights and powers held by Mr and/or Mrs Clayton under the VRPT Trust Deed “property” for the purposes of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA)?
Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the power of appointment under clause 7.1 of the VRPT Trust Deed was “relationship property” for the purposes of the PRA?
If so, did the Court of Appeal err in its approach to the valuation of the power?
C In relation to the Claymark Trust, was the Court of appeal correct in its interpretation and application of:
Section 44C of the PRA?
Section 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980?
18 June 2015
______________
A The appeal is allowed.
B There is no order of costs.
23 March 2016
Hearing Transcripts
Related Documents
Court of Appeal decision — CLAYTON v CLAYTON CA438/2013 [2015] NZCA 30 [26 February 2015]
Leave judgment - leave granted — MARK ARNOLD CLAYTON v MELANIE ANN CLAYTON [2015] NZSC 84 [18 June 2015] (PDF 134 KB)
Substantive judgment — MELANIE ANN CLAYTON v MARK ARNOLD CLAYTON [2015] NZSC 30 [23 March 2016] (PDF 444 KB)