Legal Research
Cases
Dillon v Dillon

Dillon v Dillon

Case [2023] NZHC 949 3 May 2023

Admissibility of Evidence

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Contract Law

Equity & Trusts

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CIV-2022-419-67

[2023] NZHC 949

BETWEEN
CHRISTOPHER DILLON

Plaintiff

AND

HAYDEN DILLON

First Defendant

LISA DILLON
Second Defendant

TULLYCRINE LIMITED

Third Defendant

Hearing: 20 April 2023

Counsel:

S McKenna for the Plaintiff

W D Hofer and E McNicholas for the First and Second Defendants

Judgment:

3 May 2023

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE BRITTAIN

This judgment was delivered by me on 3 May 2023 at 3.30 pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

Solicitors/Counsel: McKenna King, Hamilton Tompkins Wake, Hamilton

DILLON v DILLON [2023] NZHC 949 [3 May 2023]

Introduction

[1] The plaintiff, Christopher Dillon, is the father of the first defendant, Hayden Dillon. The second defendant, Lisa Dillon, is married to Hayden Dillon. Christopher Dillon’s wife, the mother of Hayden Dillon, is Glen Dillon. She is not a party.

[2] The third defendant, Tullycrine Limited (Tullycrine), is a company that was incorporated by Hayden and Lisa. It has since been removed from the Companies Register. Christopher has recently filed a separate proceeding seeking an order restoring Tullycrine to the Register, so that he can pursue his claims against Tullycrine in this proceeding.

[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 residence was built on the farm for the purpose of accommodating the extended family. Christopher and Glen paid $17,000.00 for a development consent fee for construction of the residence. Christopher alleges other contributions to the development of the property. Christopher and Glen also assisted by looking after their grandchildren.

[6] By 2018, the relationship between Christopher and his son had irreparably broken down. Christopher and Glen left the farm in mid-2018 and the farm was subsequently sold.

[7] The legal nature of the arrangements between Christopher and the defendants is in dispute.

[8] After Christopher and Glen left the farm, Christopher commenced a claim in the Employment Relations Authority, seeking to recover wages for the period that he assisted in operating the business. The Authority determined that Christopher was not an employee of Tullycrine and his claims were dismissed.1

[9] Christopher challenged that determination in the Employment Court. The Employment Court upheld the Authority’s determination that Christopher was not an employee 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 Dillon v Dillon

Details

AGLC: Dillon v Dillon [2023] NZHC 949
Case: [2023] NZHC 949
Decision Date: 3 May 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Dillon v Dillon, the plaintiff, Christopher Dillon, sought to recover unpaid wages and contributions from his son Hayden Dillon, his daughter-in-law Lisa Dillon, and the company Tullycrine Limited. The defendants applied for the proceeding to be struck out or for summary judgment. The court considered the legal principles governing strike-out and summary judgment applications, and the adequacy of the plaintiff's pleadings. The court held that the defendants had not demonstrated that the plaintiff's claims were so untenable that they could not possibly succeed. The plaintiff was required to file an amended statement of claim that complied with the High Court Rules and the court gave the plaintiff leave to name Tullycrine Limited as a defendant despite it being removed from the Companies Register. The proceeding was adjourned for a case management conference. Costs for all steps in respect of the interlocutory application lay where they fell.

Orders