Supreme Court Evidence Concluded In Claim For Shares

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30146, 1 June 1963, Page 18

Supreme Court Evidence Concluded In Claim For Shares

Nothing sinister had ever been seen by him in the actions of the trustees administering the estate *of Wayne Redpath, said the solicitor for the trustees, Ralph Patrick Thompson, in lhe Supreme Court yesterday. Thompson was continuing his evidence as one' of the second defendants in the hearing of a claim by the widow and son of Wayne Redpath before Mr Justice Wilson. The plaintiffs are seeking a declaration that 90(X) shares, transferred from Redpath's account after his death in 1956 to his mother’s account, were in fact owned beneficially by him and were not held in trust for his mother.

The transfer by Wayne Redpath's trustees is claimed by the plaintiffs. Ayleen Betty Redpath and David John Redpath (Mr P. T. Mahon) to constitute a breach of trust. Tile first defendants are Walter Neville Norwood and Arthur James Lee, company directors, cf Wellington, trustees of Wayne Redpath's estate. They are represented by Mr R. A. Young. Tlie second defendants are lhe trustees of the estate of Evelyn Mt/od Redpath. Wayne Redpath’s mother— Walter Neville Norwood and Ralph Patrick Thompson, a Christchurch solicitor, both represented by Mr B. McClelland and Mr A D. Holland The value of the 9000 shares and accumulated dividends is now estimated at £55.000 Under cross-examination by Mr Mahon, Thompson said the rate of death duties on the estate of Wayne Redpath had been 60 per cent. By way of contrast that on the estate of Evelyn Maud Redpath had been 40 per cent This was because of the different dates. The rates had changed and at the time of Wayne Redpath’s death they were at a peak. To his Honour the witness said Mrs Redpath, sen., was clear-headed and astute. She did not look an old lady and was extremely well dressed His Honour said he was concerned about the declaration of trust signed by her in 1957 for the Inland Revenue Department The declaration was to the effect that the shares were held in trust for her. In it, she said she was not entitled to take up shares, but as her son had only £lOOO and she had £9OOO to invest, he had bought them on trust for her and the dividends were paid into his trust account for her benefit

“The source of my uneasiness over this is that a '.oman who was as clearheaded and astute as I understand Mrs Redpath to have been should have made a declaration which contained two quite palpable errors and she didn’t pick them up." his Honour said. • He said he was concerned

lest she had signed it as a mere formality. To his Honour, the witness said he had no doubt that Mrs Redpath had read the declaration.

“In al! my transactions with her I thought she and the trustees were benefiting Wayne Redpath’s estate because of the steps they were taking.” The witness said Mrs Redpath had always operated as though the shares were hers "I didn’t think for one moment that she was trying in any way to take money from the estate.” His Honour: I am sure you didn't, Mr Thompson. Capital Increase Walter Neville Norwood said in evidence he was married to the sister of Wayne Redpath. He had known him intimately and had been on excellent terms with him. The witness said he knew there had been an increase in the capita) of J. A. Redpath and Sons. Ltd., in 1951 “Wayne had never mentioned the 9000 shares to me" In 1951 he was concerned because his own wife had not got a proportionate number of shares issued to her in the increase. When he first heard of Wayne Redpath's shareholdings as a result of the 1951 increase he thought there had been a mal-distribu-tion of shares. “I was not vitally concerned who got them or how. I think, as a matter of principle, I was annoyed ’my wife had not been allowed to take her minimum entitlement.” The witness said the only discussion he could recall having had with Wayne Redpath was on his last visit to Wellington earl,” in July. 1956. He asked Redpath if there was any reason why Rana, his sister, had not been allowed her minimum entitlement. “Wayne was hesitant. He was not very well at the time. My reaction was that he paled, and my impression from that moment on was that he was aware his sister’s interests had not been fully orotected.”

The witness said Mrs Redpath. sen., had told him before Wayne Redpath’s death that he held shares for her

He could not recall the number beung mentioned. “She said Wayne was holding the shares for her. and tout they would be finally distributed equally between Wayne and Rana. She aaid she was holding a letter from Wayne (doled December 1, 1951 > supporting ownership o< toe shares.

“Mrs Redpath told me toe dividends on the snares had been accunuil.rting for her in an account at the office and on which she was receiving interest." I His Honour noted an objection by Mr Mahon to toe admission of evidence concerning conversations between toe witness and Mrs ; Redpath, sen., and reserved I his decision. I i The witness said he believed the first suggestion I that the shares possibly be- ! longed to Wayne Redpanh had come from Mrs Redpath, jun.. in January or February, 1957. “I didn’t say much about it at all because of the conversations I had had with Wayne’s mother, my co-trus- ■ tee and the information I j had gathered from various I sources.” The witness said it was mj correct that he hud told Mrs I Redpath, jun.. he knew the shares were her husband’s, | that they were being kept ; out of his estate and that they ■ would come back later. I In discussions with Mrs . Redpath, sen., she had neve; 1 •»aid anything to indicate toe r oney for toe shares had been a loan to Wayne Redpeto. The witness said he discussed Wayne Redpath’s affairs with lus mother before his death He believed his assets were substantially his house property. 3500 shares in J A. Redpath and Sons. Ltd. and shares in Dominion Motors, Ltd. Under cross-examination by Mr Mahon the witness agreed the 9000 shares were valued for death duty purposes at about £2 6s a share. Before tdie take-over of Redpaths there was a capital distribution to shareholders by which they became entitled to take over shares in Dominion Motors, Ltd. The witness said ownership of 9000 share® as at 1963 meant in effect the shares had a value of £5. A great proportion of the estate «f Evelyn Maud Redpath had been the 9000 sliares and the Dominion Motors’ share® which followed them. The net value of her estate was in excess of £60,000. To Mr Mahon, the witness said he never told his co-trustee before he went on a fact-finding mission to Christchurch that Wayne Redpath held 9000 shares in trust. He did not tell him because he hoped there would be some way of having them included in the estate. Wbea Lee (the co-iruetee') returned to Wellington and told him Wayne Redpath held shares in trust he said he knew already. Mr Mahon: You and Lee calculated the beat way to handle toe transaction. and in the best interests of the estate decided to call it a trust?

The witness: I don’t think that would be fair. The case for toe second defendants was concluded and the hearing adjourned to Tuesday for addressee by counsel.