Dillon v Dillon - [2024] NZHC 1109

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2023-419-88

[2024] NZHC 1109

BETWEEN
CHRISTOPHER DILLON

Plaintiff

AND

HAYDEN DILLON

First Defendant

LISA DILLON

Second Respondent

Hearing: 14 February 2024

Counsel:

P V Cornegé for the Applicant

W D Hofer for the First and Second Respondents

Judgment:

7 May 2024

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE BRITTAIN

This judgment was delivered by me on 7 May 2024 at 4 pm.
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

…………………..
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel: Tompkins Wake, Hamilton
Riverbank Chambers, Hamilton

DILLON v DILLON [2024] NZHC 1109 [7 May 2024]

Introduction

[1] This proceeding has its genesis in a dispute between the plaintiff, Christopher Dillon, and his son and daughter-in-law, Hayden and Lisa Dillon. Christopher’s wife, Glen Dillon, is not a party, but she is mentioned in the background which I set out below.

[2] The first defendant, Tullycrine Ltd (Tullycrine), is a company that was incorporated and controlled by Hayden and Lisa. It was removed from the Register of Companies. On 29 November 2023, I ordered that Tullycrine be restored to the Register, so that Christopher’s claims against Tullycrine can proceed.

[3] The second defendant, Hopeton Trustee Co Ltd (Hopeton), was at material times a trustee of the Dillon Family Trust, a trust associated with Hayden and Lisa. Hopeton’s directors are Hayden and Lisa, although Lisa was the sole director during the relevant period.

[4] Christopher commenced this proceeding in 2022, bringing causes of action against Hayden, Lisa and Tullycrine (the first statement of claim). In a judgment dated 3 May 2023, I dismissed Hayden and Lisa’s application for an order striking out the claims against them, or alternatively for defendant’s summary judgment. I directed Christopher to file an amended statement of claim.

[5] Christopher has filed a second amended statement of claim dated 6 June 2023, adding Hopeton as a defendant (the second statement of claim). Hayden and Lisa are no longer parties. Hopeton now applies for defendant’s summary judgment in respect of the cause of action against Hopeton in the second statement of claim.

Background

[6]The relevant background is set out in my judgment dated 3 May 2023:

[3] In 2010, Tullycrine purchased a farm in the Waikato. The intention was that the farm would be utilised to provide accommodation for Hayden, Lisa and their children, together with Christopher and Glen, and to operate Tullycrine’s racehorse agistment business (the business). The extended Dillon family lived together on the farm from 2010 until 2018.

[4] On 20 December 2011, the family met with a lawyer at the offices of Tompkins Wake to attempt to agree various matters relating to the arrangements between them. The meeting resulted in a letter from Tompkins Wake to Hayden and Lisa dated 21 December 2011, and various handwritten notes which were included with that letter. Some of the handwritten notes were signed by the parties.

[5] From 2010 to 2018, Christopher contributed his services to the business. A…

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 Dillon v Dillon

Details

AGLC: Dillon v Dillon [2024] NZHC 1109
Case: [2024] NZHC 1109
Decision Date: 7 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Associate Judge Brittain delivered a judgment on the application by Hopeton Trustee Co Ltd for summary judgment against Christopher Dillon. Christopher brought claims against Hayden and Lisa Dillon and their company, Tullycrine Ltd, which were subsequently amended to include Hopeton. The core of Christopher’s claims is the assertion that he contributed significantly to the development and maintenance of a family farm, under the reasonable expectation of receiving an ownership interest. He further contends that Hopeton, which received the farm from Tullycrine, knowingly received trust property.

Hopeton argued that Christopher’s claims against it could not succeed on the evidence and were out of time. The Court addressed these arguments in turn, first considering whether there was evidence supporting Christopher’s expectation of an interest in the property. The Court found that there were genuine issues of fact regarding the nature of Christopher’s contributions and the understandings between the parties, which required resolution at a trial. The Court also rejected the argument that Christopher's claim for equitable compensation based on knowing receipt of trust property was time-barred. The Court determined that the primary limitation period of six years applied, which had not expired when the claim was filed.

Based on the Court’s reasoning, it dismissed Hopeton’s application for summary judgment, concluding that there were material facts in dispute and that the claim was not out of time. The Court indicated that costs should follow the event on a 2B basis and directed the parties to submit cost memoranda if they could not agree on costs.

Orders