Beere v Bullock - [2025] NZHC 2990

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2021-404-2416

[2025] NZHC 2990

UNDER the Trusts Act 2019 and in the inherent and equitable jurisdictions of the High Court

IN THE MATTER OF

the BEERE FAMILY TRUST

BETWEEN

WARREN ERNEST BEERE
Plaintiff

AND

GEORGE BULLOCK

First Defendant

PHILLIP RAYMOND NOTTINGHAM

Second Defendant

ROBERT EARLE McKINNEY
Third Defendant

DERMOT GREGORY NOTTINGHAM

Fourth Defendant

Hearing: 11 August 2025

Appearances:

Andrew Steele for the Plaintiff

Dermot Nottingham for the Defendants (self-represented)

Judgment:

9 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE C B TAYLOR

[Application for leave to appeal]

Solicitors:

This judgment was delivered by me on 9 October 2025 at 3:00pm
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016
……………………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Patterson Hopkins (William M Patterson), Auckland, for the Plaintiff
Copy for:
Andrew J Steele, Auckland, for the Plaintiff Defendants – all self-represented, Auckland

BEERE v BULLOCK [2025] NZHC 2990 [9 October 2025]

Application for leave to appeal

[1] On 31 May 2023 the Court delivered a judgment (the Judgment)1 which dismissed the defendants’ applications to strike out the proceedings, to debar the plaintiff’s counsel and find the plaintiff’s counsel in contempt of the Court.

[2] The defendants filed an application for leave to appeal the Judgment on 26 June 2023, and the plaintiff filed a notice of opposition to the application dated 4 July 2023.

[3] The defendants’ application for leave to appeal was to be heard on 30 November 2023. In preparation for that hearing the defendants filed submissions in support of the application dated 17 November 2023, the plaintiff filed submissions in support of their opposition to the application dated 23 November 2023. The hearing did not proceed on 30 November 2023 and the leave to appeal application was heard on 11 August 2025.

[4] For the hearing on 11 August 2025 the defendants filed a synopsis of submissions dated 7 August 2025 and also filed a document dated 11 August 2025 with oral submissions at the hearing.

[5] The plaintiff relied on the submissions filed on 23 November 2023 in anticipation of the hearing of the leave to appeal application on 30 November 2023 (which did not proceed).

Defendants’ application dated 4 March 2025

[6] Although not dealt with at the hearing on 11 August 2025, this application was set down to be dealt with in that hearing.2 Accordingly it is dealt with on the papers in this judgment.

1 Beere v Bullock [2023] NZHC 1172.
2 See minute of Wilkinson-Smith J dated 21 May 2025 at [9].

Legal principles

[7] No appeal3 lies from any order or decision of the High Court made on an interlocutory application in respect of any civil proceeding unless leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal is given by the High Court or by the Court of Appeal following the High Court’s refusal of leave.4

[8] The relevant principles are set out in the decision of the Court…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Beere v Bullock

Details

AGLC: Beere v Bullock [2025] NZHC 2990
Case: [2025] NZHC 2990
Decision Date: 9 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Beere v Bullock involved the plaintiff, Warren Ernest Beere, who brought proceedings against multiple defendants concerning the Beere Family Trust. The primary dispute centred on the management and administration of the trust, with allegations of breach of trust and dishonesty against the trustees. The defendants filed various applications, including a strike-out application, which the Court dismissed. The defendants subsequently sought leave to appeal the Court's decision.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the defendants' application for leave to appeal the dismissal of their strike-out application and other orders should be granted. The Court had to consider the criteria for granting leave to appeal, including whether the alleged errors were of general or public importance, the potential for further delay, and whether the interests of justice were served by allowing an appeal.

The Court found that the defendants had not demonstrated any arguable error of law or fact in the Judgment. The allegations of improper conduct by the presiding Judge, failure to address alleged perjury and fraudulent submissions, and procedural errors were all deemed unsubstantiated and without merit. The Court noted that the defendants' applications for leave to appeal were misconceived, as the issues raised could not be resolved in the context of a strike-out application. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the appeal did not meet the high threshold required for leave, and granting leave would not serve the interests of justice due to the lack of merit in the appeal and the significant delay already incurred.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the defendants' application for leave to appeal and also dismissed their application dated 4 March 2025, which sought various orders related to the case management and the involvement of another Judge. The Court ordered that the defendants' application for leave to appeal the Judgment was dismissed, and the defendants' application dated 4 March 2025 was also dismissed. The plaintiff, being the successful party, was entitled to costs, which were to be submitted by the parties within 10 working days of the date of the judgment.

Orders