Corbett v Patterson - [2014] NZCA 274

For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA303/2011 [2014] NZCA 274

BETWEEN
JOHN HILLARY CORBETT

Appellant

AND

BRUCE REGINALD PATTERSON AND ROBERT CORBETT WESTERN Respondents

Hearing: 22 May 2014

Court:

Randerson, Winkelmann and Lang JJ

Counsel:

Appellant in Person
C J R Baird for Respondents

Judgment:

26 June 2014 at 11:30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The appeal is dismissed.

B The appellant must pay costs to the respondents for a standard appeal on a

Band A basis with usual disbursements.

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Randerson J)

Introduction

[1] The appellant and his sister Lyndal Bolesworth are the two discretionary beneficiaries of the J M and J S Corbett Family Trust settled by their late parents in
July 1998. The respondents are the trustees of that trust.

CORBETT v PATTERSON AND WESTERN CA303/2011 [2014] NZCA 274 [26 June 2014]

[2] Since his parents died in 2005, the appellant Mr Corbett has been engaged in litigation over the Trust or issues associated with it.

[3] In this appeal, Mr Corbett challenges a judgment of Priestley J issued on

18 April 2011 in which the Judge:1

(a) Ruled that Mr Corbett was an incapacitated person within the meaning of r 4.29 of the High Court Rules; and

(b)Appointed Mr Simon Jefferson QC as Mr Corbett’s litigation guardian under r 4.35 of the High Court Rules.

[4] The issue in this appeal is whether those orders were correctly made.

Background

[5] The Judge recorded the essence of Mr Corbett’s concerns in these terms:2

The trigger of his stress is his perception that, around the time of his mother’s death in 2005, his parents, who at that stage were being cared for, were subjected to undue influence from other members of Mr Corbett’s family and by a solicitor. The result of that undue influence was that the plaintiff’s parents did not implement what he considers they really intended, and that was to alter both their wills and the memorandum of wishes relating to the trust, so that the estates and the trust would be distributed equally between the plaintiff and his sister, rather than two thirds to one third in the sister’s favour.

[6] There have been a number of proceedings issued by Mr Corbett. We briefly summarise these and the relevant procedural history:

(a) Priestley J recorded that the Auckland High Court Register suggested there had been six proceedings filed since 2005, including one appeal from the District Court and two judicial review applications against the legal complaints review officer.

(b)The first claim by Mr Corbett against his sister and the present respondents sought a variety of relief including an order for the

1 Corbett v Western [2011] 3 NZLR 41 (HC) [High Court judgment].

removal of his sister as a trustee of the Trust.3 Those proceedings were settled at a settlement conference on 24 January 2007 but Mr Corbett failed or refused to file a notice of…

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 Corbett v Patterson

Details

AGLC: Corbett v Patterson [2014] NZCA 274
Case: [2014] NZCA 274
Decision Date: 26 June 2014 at 11:30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, Corbett v Patterson was heard on 22 May 2014 and decided on 26 June 2014. The appellant, John Corbett, challenged the decision of Priestley J that he was an incapacitated person within the meaning of r 4.29 of the High Court Rules and the appointment of a litigation guardian under r 4.35 of the High Court Rules. Corbett's sister and the present respondents are the trustees of the J M and J S Corbett Family Trust, which Corbett and his sister are discretionary beneficiaries of. Corbett's appeal was dismissed, and he was ordered to pay costs to the respondents for a standard appeal on a Band A basis with usual disbursements.

The court found that Corbett's capacity to conduct the litigation was appropriately assessed by the expert opinion of Dr. Brinded, a well-qualified, experienced, and respected psychiatrist. Dr. Brinded's opinion was effectively unchallenged, and the court agreed that Corbett did not understand the issues on which his decision would be required as a litigant conducting proceedings on his own behalf. Corbett's pleadings and submissions were of extreme length, rambling, repetitive, unfocused, and unintelligible. The court concluded that it was in Corbett's interests, as well as those of the respondents, the Trust, and the Court, to have a litigation guardian appointed to conduct the litigation on Corbett's behalf. The person appointed as a litigation guardian is a matter for the High Court, and the court was not obliged to adopt Corbett's suggestion that Mr. Michael Black be appointed.

Orders