Gilby v Bradley - [2025] NZHC 1626

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2024-404-2663 [2025] NZHC 1626

UNDER the Trustee Act 1996, Property Law
Act 2007 and Contract and Commercial Act 2017

BETWEEN GRAEME MICHAEL CHARLES GILBY
First plaintiff
GRAEME MICHAEL CHARLES GILBY and RENNIE COX TRUSTEES NO. 18
LIMITED as trustees of GMC GILBY FAMILY TRUST
Second plaintiffs

AND RICHARD LEE BRADLEY
First defendant
LURCHER LIMITED
Second defendant
SHOWCO LIMITED
Third defendant
BRADLEY TRUST LIMITED
Fourth defendant

Hearing: 11 June 2025 Appearances: First plaintiff in person
M D Pascariu and L Z Rong for defendants Date of judgment: 18 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 18 June 2025 at 12.30pm.
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

GILBY v BRADLEY [2025] NZHC 1626 [18 June 2025]

[1] In this proceeding, Mr Gilby alleges a range of misconduct by the defendants in relation to their dealings with a trust property at Auckland’s Pāremoremo (the property), previously occupied by him together with his former domestic partner. He seeks a variety of substantive relief against the defendants who are Mr Gilby’s former partner’s father and entities associated with him. The claims are defended.
An initial freezing order he obtained without notice is replaced by undertakings.1

[2] For my decision presently is the defendants’ interlocutory application for an order Mr Gilby file a more explicit claim, and a series of partly-responsive applications brought by Mr Gilby. Separately, and not for my present decision, Mr Gilby also has made further application for preservation orders and the defendants have sought leave to apply for summary judgment, on the basis the matters sought to be raised by Mr Gilby have been settled between the parties.

Background

[3] Mr Gilby is unrepresented. Although the proceeding also is contended to be brought in the name of the trustees of Mr Gilby’s family trust, as Mr Gilby previously has been told, he may not act for other than himself.2 Thus Mr Gilby’s application in respect of his co-trustee, who he seeks to substitute with another, is not able to be progressed by him. I will dismiss the application.

[4] Mr Gilby characterises his principal interlocutory applications as brought “to protect the integrity of the proceeding”, which he perceives is put at risk by various actions alleged of the defendants. His applications generally are to elevate his misapprehensions about law and procedure into new grounds for conflict, which he contends arise instead from “the Defendants’ sustained pattern of procedural deflection, evidentiary manipulation, and attempts to reframe the dispute to avoid scrutiny of fiduciary conduct”. That argumentative, conclusory and intemperate tone is maintained throughout his applications and supporting memoranda. Some measure of the dispute’s scope, the proceeding yet to progress beyond initial pleadings, is nearly 1000 pages of evidentiary and pleading documents provided for my determination.

1 Gilby v Bradley HC Auckland CIV-2024-404-2663, 5 December 2024 (Minute of Peters J) at [6].
2 Gilby…

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 Gilby v Bradley

Details

AGLC: Gilby v Bradley [2025] NZHC 1626
Case: [2025] NZHC 1626
Decision Date: 18 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Gilby v Bradley, Mr Gilby brought a proceeding against several defendants, including entities associated with his former domestic partner, in relation to the disposal of property at Pāremoremo, Auckland. Mr Gilby claims the defendants breached fiduciary duties and acted in bad faith. The defendants seek an order that Mr Gilby file a more explicit claim, and Mr Gilby has made a series of interlocutory applications. The court considered the legal issues around the adequacy of Mr Gilby's pleadings, the admissibility of certain documents, and the appropriateness of Mr Gilby's interlocutory applications. The court found Mr Gilby's pleadings to be defective, lacking fair notice of the claims, and dismissed his interlocutory applications. The court granted the defendants' application for a more explicit claim and directed Mr Gilby to file an amended statement of claim. The court also ordered the proceeding be recalled for further case management directions and reserved costs for later determination.

Orders