Alternative Dispute Resolution under the Trusts Act 2019 – missing in action?

The new Trusts Act 2019 (Act) came into force on 30 January 2021. It brings a number of significant changes to trust law and is the first major reform in 70 years. The Act applies to existing and future family trusts, trading trusts and trusts created under wills.
Author(s): John Green
A small model house with a gray roof and white walls sits on a wooden surface. Beside the model house are a set of silver keys attached to a keychain, symbolizing real estate or home ownership.

A watershed moment

One of the most significant developments in the Act is the express provision for ADR processes to resolve both internal (between trustees and/or beneficiaries) and external trust disputes involving a trustee and one or more third parties. An ADR process is defined in the Act as an alternative dispute resolution process (for example, mediation or arbitration) designed to facilitate the resolution of a matter. Prior to the Act, it was generally considered that disputes relating to trusts were not capable of resolution through mediation or arbitration because many beneficiaries of trusts were discretionary, unascertained, or lacking capacity and therefore their interests could not be safeguarded or considered. In sum, the move to expressly provide for and promote the use of ADR in the Act has been a watershed moment by global standards. 
A man in a black suit sits at a desk, writing on a document. In the foreground, there is a bronze statue of Lady Justice holding scales and a sword. The background is blurred, emphasizing the statue.

Time to update trust deeds

Unfortunately, however, it would appear that the fact that ADR may be used to resolve trust disputes and/or the import of that option has been and continues to be overlooked by those responsible for drafting trust deeds. Many trust deeds are now being varied or trusts are being re-settled to comply with the Act, however many of those trust deeds are still being drafted without including any provision that requires an eligible dispute to be subject to an ADR process.

While that is not fatal in the sense that parties can of course subsequently agree to use ADR, or indeed the Court may, at the request of a trustee, a beneficiary, or on its own motion require a matter to be submitted to ADR, it may not reflect practice that is in the best interest of parties or complies with client care rules.

A man and woman sit across a desk from another man in a suit. The woman and man are smiling at each other, while the man in the suit, who is blurred in the background, appears to be facing them, seated, possibly for a formal discussion or meeting.

Model clause

The New Zealand Dispute Resolution Centre (NZDRC) has a model ADR clause which those who are drafting trust deeds can simply insert into the text of the deed as the operable dispute resolution clause:

Any dispute or difference arising in relation to the trust between a trustee and one or more beneficiaries, or a trustee and one or more other trustees, but excluding any dispute about the validity of all or part of the trust, shall be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the New Zealand Dispute Resolution Centre.


The model clause is simple, straightforward, and effective. The reference to NZDRC’s Arbitration Rules (Rules) in the model clause is all that is required as the Rules provide both a framework and detailed provisions to ensure the efficient and cost effective resolution of trust disputes from appointment of the arbitral tribunal to the final award.

A man in a burgundy blazer sits at a desk, intently looking at his laptop with one hand on his chin. In the background, a woman in a blue shirt holds papers, standing near a brick wall with a potted plant. Both are in a modern office setting.

What about multi-tiered dispute resolution clauses?

We do not recommend including multi-tiered dispute resolution clauses making mediation or any other informal ADR process (such as negotiation) a precondition to arbitration.

The key point is that by agreeing to arbitrate under NZDRC’s Arbitration Rules, parties can secure the appointment of an arbitrator within 10 working days from service of a Notice of Arbitration, either by agreement or by requesting NZDRC to select and appoint the arbitral tribunal. The parties are of course at liberty to vary the Rules by agreement, but at least they do not have to agree every procedural and timetabling step at a time when agreement as to anything is often difficult to achieve.

Parties can agree to mediate at any time and NZDRC’s Arbitration Rules expressly provide for a mandatory stay of the proceedings where parties agree to mediate once arbitration has commenced. There is nothing like an impending arbitration to focus parties’ minds on alternative processes for resolving their dispute such as negotiation or mediation. Most importantly, not all matters are ripe for mediation prior to arbitration (or litigation) commencing and to make parties engage in mediation as a precondition to arbitration may only serve to delay the outcome, increase the cost, and in all likelihood, to militate against the use of mediation by a party at a later date when it might be  used to best and proper advantage.

A hand holding Nigerian currency, including a 1000 Naira note and several coins, against a red background. The hand is slightly curled around the money, and the coins are stacked on top of the note.

Other resources you might like

If you found this article helpful and are interested in learning more, there is a wealth of other resources available on our website. We have a wide array of articles and guides on a variety of topics, each designed to provide you with a deeper understanding of the subject matter. We encourage you to explore these resources and deepen your knowledge.

A brass scale of justice sits prominently on a glass desk, symbolizing law and fairness. In the background, a person in a suit, partially out of focus, examines documents, indicating that even in this seemingly straightforward setting, the court sees through layers of lipstick and linguistic camouflage.
Arbitration

Court sees through layers of lipstick and linguistic camouflage in audacious application to set aside arbitral award

Unfortunately, too many unsuccessful arbitration participants still see it as worth their while to ‘roll the dice’ by manufacturing a pathway to a court, where strained procedural unfairness arguments rise to the fore as something of a last refuge of the desperate. … This farcical position should no longer be entertained. Where [this] backdoor strategy is unsuccessfully deployed in future it should be met with a punitive costs sanction.[1]

Arbitration is final and binding, and an award in New Zealand can be appealed only on a question of law (not fact) or when it is in conflict with public policy (involving fraud, corruption or a breach of natural justice, such as procedural unfairness). The principle underpinning this, is that parties will not be readily provided with a chance to re-argue their claims before a court after having chosen freely to resolve their disputes through arbitration.

This reflects the old saying, “you made your bed, so must lie in it”. In a recent decision out of the Supreme Court of Western Australia, the lawyers involved must have felt they had been sent to their beds without any supper. The case was Venetian Nominees Pty Ltd v Weatherford Australia Pty Ltd,[2]where Kenneth Martin J dismissed an application to set aside an arbitral award based on an alleged denial of procedural fairness, in a scathing judgment.
Learn more
Two people shaking hands across a desk, one wearing a dark suit and the other without a visible outfit. A document and a pen are on the desk, with a laptop partially visible beside them, suggesting a business or professional agreement.
Arbitration

It’s Time: How New Zealand can bring together Latin America and Asia

Is it time for work to begin again on the Southern Link project? Here, we identify the opportunities which have arisen since the easing of COVID-19 restrictions, and how New Zealand can take advantage of these.
Learn more
Adjudication, Arbitration, Mediation

Sense and violence: English courts reject offshore construction contractor’s $25 million indemnity insurance claim because its interpretation of the policy made no commercial sense and did violence to the language

In Technip v MedGulf, the English High Court and Court of Appeal dismissed a construction contractor’s $25 million (USD) indemnity insurance claim for damage it caused when it crashed into the project developer’s property during construction works in an offshore oil field. Both courts preferred the insurer’s interpretation of the policy’s ambiguously worded exclusion clause, finding the policyholder’s interpretation made no commercial sense and did far more violence to the natural meaning of the words.
Learn more

Get in touch

Contact our team today to see how we can help

Contact us

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.