Gatfield v Pearson - [2024] NZHC 2074

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2023-404-2969

[2024] NZHC 2074

UNDER
Parts 5 and 18 of the High Court Rules 2016, the Trusts Act 2019 and the inherent

jurisdiction of the Court

IN THE MATTER

of an application for review under section 126 of the Trusts Act 2019; claims for reaches of trustee duties; and removal of trustee

BETWEEN

GILLIAN JANE GATFIELD

First Plaintiff

EMMA JACQUELINE PEARSON

Second Plaintiff

AND

ANNE ELIZABETH HINTON

Defendant

Hearing:
29 July 2024

(Telephone Conference)

Counsel:

M A Jeffries for First and Second Plaintiffs A S Butler KC for Defendant

R Lange for Interested Parties (J M Allen and R M Gatfield)

Judgment:

29 July 2024

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE LESTER

(Application to stay enforcement)

This judgment was delivered by me on 29 July 2024 at 4:00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

GATFIELD v HINTON [2024] NZHC 2074 [29 July 2024]

[1] On 26 June 2024, orders were made as sought by the defendant requiring this proceeding to be referred to mediation and if mediation was unsuccessful, then for the parties to attend arbitration.1

[2] The mediation is scheduled for Thursday 1 August 2024. The normal arrangements for mediation, including the hiring of a neutral venue, have been completed.

[3] On 22 July 2024, the plaintiffs filed an application seeking leave to appeal the 26 June 2024 decision, a stay of enforcement, and requesting a copy of the transcript be prepared.

[4] This judgment deals with the stay application given the order made on 26 June 2024 and varied by a Minute of 10 July 2024, required the mediation to be completed by 1 August 2024.

[5] Mr Jeffries, counsel for the plaintiffs, in his application of 22 July 2024, sets out a comprehensive summary (running to some 16 pages) of the grounds of appeal that are relied on and the asserted basis for leave to appeal.

[6] Mr Butler KC, counsel for the defendant, filed a notice of opposition dated 25 July 2024. Counsel for the interested parties filed a brief memorandum on 26 July 2024 which supported the defendant’s opposition to the stay insofar as it relates to mediation. Both the defendant and the interested parties seek to retain the mediation date and have the balance of the orders in respect of the stay for arbitration, leave to appeal, and the prepared transcript, deferred until after mediation.

[7] While Mr Jeffries’ application does not refer to the jurisdiction relied on to seek a stay, r 12 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 provides that pending determination of an application for leave to appeal, the court appealed from (or the Court of Appeal) may order a stay. The stay may relate to whole or part of the decision.2

1 Gatfield v Hinton [2024] NZHC 1712.
2 Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 12(4)(a).

[8] The authors of McGechan on Procedure discuss…

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 Gatfield v Pearson

Details

AGLC: Gatfield v Pearson [2024] NZHC 2074
Case: [2024] NZHC 2074
Decision Date: 29 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Gatfield v Hinton involved an application for review, claims for breaches of trustee duties, and the removal of a trustee. The plaintiffs, Gillian Jane Gatfield and Emma Jacqueline Pearson, sought to appeal a decision requiring them to attend mediation and arbitration if mediation failed. The defendant, Anne Elizabeth Hinton, opposed the stay and was supported by interested parties. The court had to decide whether to grant a stay of enforcement pending the outcome of an appeal.

The legal issues included whether the appeal might be rendered nugatory, the bona fides of the applicants, potential prejudice to the defendant and interested parties, and the overall balance of convenience. The court noted that while the plaintiffs were reluctant to attend mediation, their substantive rights would only be affected if they agreed to a settlement. The defendant and interested parties, who were keen to explore resolution, would be prejudiced by a delay in proceedings. The court found that the balance of convenience favoured proceeding with mediation as ordered, and that the appeal's novelty and strength were not compelling enough to warrant a stay.

The court declined the application for a stay in respect of the mediation, ordering it to proceed as scheduled. The stay of arbitration, leave to appeal, and the request for a transcript were adjourned pending the outcome of the mediation. The court reserved costs for later determination.

In summary, the court refused to stay the enforcement of the mediation order, finding that the plaintiffs' rights were not significantly prejudiced by having to attend mediation. The decision underscored the importance of proceeding with alternative dispute resolution in family litigation, particularly when parties are willing to engage constructively in settlement discussions.

Orders