Melanie Ann Clayton v Mark Arnold Clayton and others - SC 38/2015

A The applications for leave to appeal are granted in respect of the questions identified in B and C below (Clayton v Clayton [2015] NZCA 30).  In all other respects, the applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
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