Reserved decision — distribution of trust assets — disposition of property — restraining order — removal and replacement of trustee — application for extension of time — jurisdiction of Family Court — Property (Relationships) Act 1976, ss 1N, 2, 11, 18B, 21A, 21H, 24, 37, 43, 44 & 44C — Family Court Rules 2002, r 3 — Family Proceedings Act 1980, s 182 — Trustee Act 1956, s 33A — Trusts Act 2019, ss 114, 137 & 141 — Beuker v Beuker (1977) 1 MPC 20 (SC) — Ritchie v Ritchie (1991) 8 FRNZ 197 (HC) — Wang v Ma [2019] NZHC 821 — JNL v DN FC Wanganui FAM-2004-083-363, 21 August 2006 — Aschenbrenner v Williams [2015] NZFC 3602 — Lee v Thompson [2016] NZFC 3048 — Clayton v Clayton [2016] NZSC 29, [2016] 1 NZLR 551 — Regal Castings Ltd v Lightbody [2008] NZSC 87, [2009] 2 NZLR 433 — Ryan v Unkovich [2010] 1 NZLR 434 (HC) — Horsfall v Potter [2017] NZSC 196, [2008] 1 NZLR 638 — Potter v Horsfall [2016] NZCA 514 — Nation v Nation [2005] 3 NZLR 46 (CA) — TD v T [2019] NZHC 2490 — Re Coyne (2005) 24 FRNZ 922 (FC) — Martin v Martin (1982) 1 NZFLR 307 (HC) — Johansen v Johansen (1993) 10 FRNZ 578 (CA) — Staheli v Staheli [2017] NZFC 5287 — S v S [2008] NZFLR 227 (HC) — M v B [2006] 3 NZLR 660 (CA) — Dickson v Kingsley [2015] NZHC 2044, [2015] NZFLR 1012. The applicant and her ex-partner had separated after 24 years of marriage. Over the course of their relationship they had arranged their assets, including the family home, commercial properties, and physiotherapy businesses and companies, into a structure of trusts. The parties brought various proceedings to address the distribution of trust assets and relationship property following the dissolution of their marriage. The application for an extension of time for filing for a division of relationship property was granted by the Court in the interests of justice: the delay was not significant, the case was overall meritorious and the delay caused no prejudice to the respondent. The applicant also sought a declaration allowing her to pursue a claim under the Family Proceedings Act (FPA), that the Court could make orders as to already-settled property. An application to strike out that pleading was subsequently brought by the respondent. This was unsuccessful as the Family Court does not have jurisdiction to make such a declaration, and the applicant would be required to file an application detailing the remedies sought. The respondent company claimed that the applicant's failure to give notice to the Trust that she had an interest in the property, or to seek direction under the Trustees Act, were fatal procedural errors. The Court noted that the Trusts Act granted it the ability to give directions necessary to preserve property or interests in proceedings in the Family Court. However, the respondent's submission striking out the applicant's claim was rejected by the Court, as it was contrary to the FPA's principal that proceedings should be resolved as inexpensively, simply and speedily as is consistent with justice. The application for a restraining order was declined after undertakings were offered, which were held to be sufficient to protect the property in contention while an outcome was reached. The Court noted that the recent appointment of a new independent trustee added authority and reliability to the undertaking offered. The applicant had raised concerns about the conduct of the respondent as a trustee, but the Court held that these matters were beyond the jurisdiction of the Family Court which was limited to orders necessary to preserve assets or give effect to orders under the Property Relationships Act. An order for discovery was granted, and the respondents were directed to file the relevant documents in their possession, power and control within 28 days. Judgment Date: 5 July 2021.