Trustee discretion, the general duty of care, and the limits of judicial review: Perpetual Trust Ltd v Cooke [2026] NZCA 349 (31 July 2026)

Clicks: 9
ID: 333768
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #9 of 9 articles by views in Trusts & Trustees

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Abstract In Perpetual Trust Ltd v Cooke the New Zealand Court of Appeal considered, for the first time at appellate level, how the general duty of care in s 29 of the Trusts Act 2019 (NZ) relates to the principle of non-intervention in discretionary trustee decisions. The Court held that s 29 is not a vehicle for a merits review. It governs how a trustee implements a discretionary decision, not whether the decision was the best available. Applying the established grounds of intervention, it reversed findings of breach of trust as to one property and upheld them as to another.
Reference Key
openalex_W7223458276 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors
Journal Trusts & Trustees
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/tandt/ttag095
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.