Abstract
New Zealand's limitation legislation was overhauled with the enacting of the Limitation Act 2010. Despite this comprehensive reform, the way in which trust claims are best to be addressed appears to have been largely overlooked in the reform process. Consequently, the multitude of historic issues that have plagued statutory provisions dealing with trust claims endure in the 2010 Act, with the few changes to the structure of drafting compounding these problems. This paper explores the policy considerations at work, and, by way of example, undertakes a thorough analysis of the exception for fraudulent breaches of trust in light of these policy considerations to illustrate some of the new problems that are bound to arise in practice. Given the numerous and significant difficulties, and the substantial implications for parties seeking to rely on these provisions, this paper argues that a broad reconsideration of the way in which trust claims are dealt with in the 2010 Act is urgently needed.
Highlights
In 2014, issues surrounding the limitation of actions for breach of trust were once again thrust into the limelight with the United Kingdom Supreme Court's decision in Williams v Central Bank of Nigeria.1 This is the most recent of a number of cases in the senior courts across common law jurisdictions demonstrating the very real, significant and ongoing difficulties engendered by the way in which statutes of limitation deal with breaches of trust.2 This is a crucial area of law
This paper explores the policy considerations at work, and, by way of example, undertakes a thorough analysis of the exception for fraudulent breaches of trust in light of these policy considerations to illustrate some of the new problems that are bound to arise in practice
Given the numerous and significant difficulties, and the substantial implications for parties seeking to rely on these provisions, this paper argues that a broad reconsideration of the way in which trust claims are dealt with in the 2010 Act is urgently needed
Summary
In 2014, issues surrounding the limitation of actions for breach of trust were once again thrust into the limelight with the United Kingdom Supreme Court's decision in Williams v Central Bank of Nigeria. This is the most recent of a number of cases in the senior courts across common law jurisdictions demonstrating the very real, significant and ongoing difficulties engendered by the way in which statutes of limitation deal with breaches of trust. This is a crucial area of law. Especially in tort claims, by the 1950 Act's reference to "the date on which the cause of action accrued",32 it not being clear whether the date ran from when the act or omission occurred, or from the point at which the (often latent) damage was incurred.33 Both the late knowledge period and specific instances of discretion afforded to the court were designed to ameliorate the unfairness to plaintiffs in situations where the plaintiff did not know they had a claim within the primary limitation period, or were labouring under a "disability" as a result of the conduct giving rise to the claim, preventing them from making reasonable judgements in respect of that claim.. The following part reviews the way in which each of the 1950 and 2010 Acts operate in respect of trusts, highlighting the fact that the approaches are not significantly different, but that the drafting changes that have been made in the 2010 Act have the effect of compounding, rather than addressing, the historic issues
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
