Beere v Bullock

Case [2023] NZHC 1172


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2021-404-2416

[2023] NZHC 1172

IN THE MATTER OF the BEERE FAMILY TRUST

BETWEEN

WARREN EARNEST BEERE

Plaintiff

AND

GEORGE BULLOCK

First Defendant

PHILLIP RAYMOND NOTTINGHAM
Second Defendant

ROBERT EARLE McKINNEY

Third Defendant

Hearings: 13 September 2022 and 27 March 2023

Appearances:

Andrew J Steele for the Plaintiff Defendants are self-represented

Judgment:

17 May 2023


JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE C B TAYLOR

[Application to strike out proceedings, debar counsel and find counsel in contempt of Court]


This judgment was delivered by me on 17 May 2023 at 3pm

pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………………. Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

Patterson Hopkins (William M Patterson), Auckland, for the Plaintiff

Copy for:
Andrew J Steele, Auckland, for the Plaintiff

The Defendants

WARREN EARNEST BEERE v GEORGE BULLOCK [2023] NZHC 1172 [17 May 2023]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paragraph

Introduction

[1]

Background

[2]

Defendants’ applications

[18]

Notice of opposition

[20]

Defendants’ submissions

[21]

Warren’s submissions

[25]

Legal principles

[29]

Analysis

[32]

Whether Warren’s claims of breach of trust and knowing receipt

are untenable or not?  [34]

Kohukohu Road property and Allen Bell Drive properties                [34]

The Beazley Place property  [44]

Conclusions in relation to the breach of trust and knowing receipt claim

[51]

Application to debar Warren’s counsel and find him in contempt     [55]

Conclusion in relation to the application to debar Warren’s  counsel and find counsel and his law firm in contempt of Court  [67]

Result  [69]

Orders  [70]

Introduction

[1]                  Warren Beere claimed against George Bullock, Phillip Nottingham and Robert McKinney for breach of trust and knowing receipt.1 The defendants now bring applications to strike out the proceeding, to debar Mr Warren Beere’s counsel, and find Mr Warren Beere’s counsel in contempt of Court.

Background

[2]                  In December 1998, Warren’s  son, Stephen, became the registered owner  of  6 Beazley Place, Glendene (the Beazley Place property). On 19 January 2008, he established the Beere Family Trust (the Trust).

[3]                  Pursuant to an agreement for sale and purchase dated 19 January 2008, Stephen sold the Beazley Place property to himself and Mr Nottingham in their capacity as trustees of the Trust. The sale was for a consideration of a debt of $355,000, with that debt to be forgiven by Stephen over time.

[4]                  On 26 April 2010, Mr Nottingham retired as trustee of the Trust and was replaced by Mr Bullock.

[5]                  By deed of gift dated 18 October 2012, Stephen forgave the trustees for all debts owed by them to him in their capacity as trustees.

[6]                  On 29 July 2014, Stephen and Mr Bullock registered a mortgage over the Beazley Place property to secure a loan to the Trust from Arifin Leo. A general security agreement was signed at the same time.


1      Where surnames are common, I will for convenience, and meaning no disrespect, refer to parties by their given names.

[7]                  On 13 June 2015, Stephen signed a will…

Continue reading Beere v Bullock

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Beere v Bullock [2023] NZHC 1172
Case
[2023] NZHC 1172
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Warren Beere brought a claim against George Bullock, Phillip Nottingham and Robert McKinney for breach of trust and knowing receipt. The defendants sought orders to strike out the proceedings, debar Warren's counsel, and find him in contempt of court. The court considered whether Warren's claims of breach of trust and knowing receipt were untenable or not, as well as the defendants' allegations against Warren's counsel. In relation to the breach of trust and knowing receipt claims, the court found there were questions about the conduct of the trustees that needed to be tested at trial. Therefore, the claims were not untenable and should not be struck out. As for the allegations against Warren's counsel, the court found there was no evidence to support the defendants' claims. The applications to strike out the proceedings and debar Warren's counsel were dismissed, and costs were awarded to Warren.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.