BETWEEN
SOPHIE ANNABELLE BIGGS

Plaintiff

AND

STEPHEN TIMOTHY BIGGS Defendant

AND

STEPHEN TIMOTHY BIGGS as trustee for the TIM BIGGS FAMILY TRUST

Second Defendant

AND

LAGUNA BAY CAPITAL PTY LIMITED as trustee for the LAGUNA BAY CAPITAL TRADING TRUST

Third Defendant

AND

LB MANAGEMENT PTY LIMITED as trustee for the LAGUNA BAY CAPITAL MT TRUST

Fourth Defendant

Hearing: 26-28 March 2018

Appearances:

D A T Chambers QC and E M Eggleston for the Plaintiff
M J McCartney QC and S H Jacobson for the Defendant
J F Anderson QC for the Second, Third and Fourth Defendants

Judgment:

29 June 2018

JUDGMENT OF NATION J

BIGGS v BIGGS [2018] NZHC 1592 [29 June 2018]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... [1] SUMMARY OF DECISIONS .......................................................................... [12] Discovery ............................................................................................................ [22] Confidentiality ................................................................................................... [28] Sale of the home / interim distribution............................................................ [30] Anonymisation of parties’ names..................................................................... [34] Service of the proceedings/representation ...................................................... [36] THE CURRENT STATE OF THE PLEADINGS .......................................... [37] Ms Biggs’ claim.................................................................................................. [37] The trustees’ pleadings ..................................................................................... [46] Mr Biggs’ pleadings........................................................................................... [47] Interrogatories and further particulars .......................................................... [50] Observations as to the pleadings...................................................................... [52] THE COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS .......................................... [58] THE APPLICATIONS FOR DISCOVERY AND HOW PROCEEDINGS PROGRESSED.................................................................................................. [78] MY ASSESSMENT AS TO HOW MR BIGGS HAS APPROACHED
THESE PROCEEDINGS ............................................................................... [138] MS BIGGS’ APPLICATION FOR FURTHER DISCOVERY AGAINST TRUSTEE DEFENDANTS ............................................................................ [144] Category 4 – correspondence to and from trustees ...................................... [151]
All correspondence between trustees (current and former) in respect of

the trusts or beneficiaries of the trusts …………………………………… [151] (a) Disposi ti on s to t rust ees …………………………………..…………….[157] (b) Value of Mr Biggs ' w ork for t rust ees …………………..……………….[161] (c) Propos ed dist ribut ions ……………………………………………...…..[166] (d) Use of t rust assets ……………………………………………………...[168] (e) C ont ribut ions of Mrs Biggs …………………………………..………...[169] (f) Purpos e of t rust s ………...……………………………………………...[172]
Category 7 – further correspondence and distribution information .......... [177]

Category 9 – legal advice ................................................................................ [183]

Category 10 – solicitors’ files.......................................................................... [191] Category 11 – general discovery .................................................................... [200] Conclusion as to Ms Biggs’ application for orders for discovery against
trustee defendants ........................................................................................... [201] MS BIGGS’ APPLICATION FOR DISCOVERY AGAINST MR BIGGS[202] Summary of submissions ................................................................................ [206] Discovery sought as to Laguna Pastoral ....................................................... [211] Other discovery required by Mr Lyne........................................................... [263]
- Email correspondence …………………………………………………....[264]

- Passport and travel documents…………………………………………...[264]

- Tax returns …………………………………………….………………… [265]

- Tax return work papers ……………………………………….……….... [265]

- Accounting work papers ……………………………………………….... [266]

- Employment contracts………………………………………..………….. [267]

- Remuneration benefits ……………………………………….…………. [267]

- Income from overseas portfolio …………………..…………………….. [269]

- General ledger extracts ……………………………………………..…... [271]

- Inter-entity transactions …………………………………………...……. [271]

- Loan accounts …………………………………………………………....[271]

- General ledgers ………………………………………………………….. [271]

- Transactions to which Mr Biggs is a party ..……………………………. [271]

- Trust distributions…

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 Biggs v Biggs

Details

AGLC: Biggs v Biggs [2018] NZHC 1592
Case: [2018] NZHC 1592
Decision Date: 29 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Biggs v Biggs is a relationship property case which has been transferred to the High Court from the Family Court. Ms Biggs claims half of the couple's relationship property. She also claims a share of the wealth which she says Mr Biggs has available to him through trusts and companies that she says he controls. Mr Biggs contends that, because Ms Biggs is seeking a share of the substantial wealth he had before their relationship began, this is a case where there should not be equal sharing of relationship property. Ms Biggs has incurred over $300,000 in legal and accounting costs. Mr Biggs' costs are also likely to be high. With her current applications, Ms Biggs is asking the Court to order an interim distribution to her of half the proceeds from the sale of the family home; for Mr Biggs' share of the proceeds to be retained in a trust account until all claims have been resolved; for either an interim distribution to her of $400,000 or that Mr Biggs pay her legal and accounting costs as they are incurred; and orders for further discovery. Mr Biggs and the trustee defendants ask the Court to ensure the confidentiality of documents that will be provided to Ms Biggs' advisers. Mr Biggs seeks orders suppressing the parties' names, orders for discovery, and directions that the settlors and beneficiaries of the trusts be served with the proceedings. The Court declined the application for an interim distribution in excess of $200,000. Mr Biggs is ordered to pay Ms Biggs $200,000 within two weeks as an interim distribution of relationship property. He is to be credited with payment of that amount against any sum to which Ms Biggs is ultimately entitled on resolution of all claims. If the home sells before claims have been resolved, that $200,000 is to be paid to Mr Biggs from the $1.5 million that Ms Biggs is entitled to from the sale of the home. The requirement on her to pay that amount to Mr Biggs is without prejudice to any order that might ultimately be made over costs. Costs on the various applications that have been dealt with in this judgment are reserved.

Orders