Jones v AMP Perpetual Trustee Company NZ Ltd - [1994] 1 NZLR 690

Superannuation schemes — Employee superannuation fund — Defined contribution scheme — Employer sole trustee — Trustee engaged AMP parent company to manage fund — Benefits funded by way of investment fund created — Approval by Government Actuary — Investment fund wholly invested in a unitised investment linked fund (A Unit) established by AMP - Equities forming a major portion of Unit's investments — Whether investment a life insurance policy for purposes of trust deed — Losses suffered as a result of sharemarket crash — Whether trustee liable for losses — Whether trustee acted in accordance with prudent person test — Whether decision to invest in A Unit an improper delegation by trustee of its powers of investment — Whether trustee had permitted trust property to be intermingled with assets of other investors — Whether trustee had breached its fiduciary duties under trust deed — Whether trustee or AMP profited personally from investment in A Unit — Whether trustee should be relieved from liability under s 73 of the Trustee Act 1956 — AMP Perpetual Trustee Company Act 1988 - Superannuation Schemes Act 1976 — Superannuation Schemes Act 1989 — Trustee Act 1956, ss 13B, 13C, 13E, 13F, 13M and 73 — Superannuation Schemes Regulations 1983, regs 5 and 10(3).

Insurance — Life insurance — Whether arrangement under superannuation trust a "policy of life or endowment assurance" — Essential features of a life insurance policy — Contingency insurance — Relevance of usage adopted in insurance industry in determining whether arrangement a "policy of life or endowment assurance" — Life Insurance Act 1908, ss 2 and 41.

Trusts and trustees — Duties of trustee — "Prudent person" test — Superannuation trust deed — Employer sole trustee — Trustee engaged AMP parent company to manage fund — Benefits funded by way of investment fund created under policy — Investment fund wholly invested in a unitised investment linked fund (A Unit) established by AMP with equities forming a major portion of Unit's investments — Losses suffered as a result of sharemarket crash — Whether trustee liable for losses — Trustee's powers of investment — Duty to act as prudent person — Nature and extent of such duty — Whether trustee negligent to retain shares after sharemarket crash — Whether trustee owed higher duty of care to members because of it being an investment company — Trustee Act 1956, s 13C.