Guest v Warner

Case [2018] NZHC 1150


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI TERENGA PARĀOA ROHE

CIV 2015-488-0183

[2018] NZHC 1150

BETWEEN

JOANNE GUEST

First Plaintiff

GUEST TRUSTEE LIMITED
Second Plaintiff

MELISSA GUEST
Third Plaintiff

AND

JULIE ANNE WARNER

Defendant

Hearing: [On the papers]

Counsel:

C Kelly and G R Mathieson for the Plaintiffs C M Webster and J C Waugh for the Defendant J C Ross, A N Guest

Judgment:

22 May 2018


COSTS JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J


This judgment is delivered by me on 22 May 2018 at 4.00 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

.....................................................

Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

Greg Kelly Law Limited, Wellington (Plaintiff) G Mathieson, Wellington (Plaintiff)

Devonport Law Limited, Auckland (for Defendant) J R Ross, Barrister, Whangarei

GUEST & ORS v WARNER [2018] NZHC 1150 [22 May 2018]

[1]                In my 12 April 2018 judgment, for a number of articulated reasons, I took the preliminary view each party should bear their own costs of trial but reserved costs to be determined on the papers, if my preliminary view was not accepted by any party and costs could not otherwise be agreed between them.

[2]                Perhaps inevitably given the breakdown in relationships recorded in my judgment, costs are now sought by all parties, who are each involved to some degree in the Martin and Anne Guest Family Trust (the “Trust”):

(a)Aaron Guest – a discretionary beneficiary under the Trust established by his parents, but not formally a party to the proceeding (although taking a full role in it) – seeks 2B costs and disbursements in the amount of $109,619.50 jointly and severally from the plaintiffs in their personal capacities, and from another non-party, Basil Ian Livingstone;

(b)the first and third plaintiffs – Aaron’s sisters, Joanne and Melissa – are discretionary beneficiaries under the Trust. Joanne and the assetless second plaintiff, Guest Trustee Limited, were also the Trust’s immediately former trustees (the third trustee being a company of which Melissa was sole director and shareholder). Mr Livingston is the sisters’ uncle, Anne Guest’s brother, and Guest Trustee Limited’s sole director and shareholder. The plaintiffs, while prepared to accept my preliminary view if all parties agreed, seek 2B costs and disbursements in the amount of $123,177.42 from the defendant, Anne Warner, formerly a trustee of the Trust until removed by Anne Guest; and

(c)Anne Warner seeks 2B costs and disbursements in the amount of

$109,000.31 under an indemnity from the Trust; alternatively, uplifted 2B costs and disbursements in the amount of $162,093.69 from the plaintiffs personally.

[3]                All parties have responded to the claims (including Aaron to the former trustees’ claim against Anne Warner), and in turn reply to those responses. Also relevant is:

(a)this is one of three inter-related proceedings between the Guest interests (although Anne Warner is not party to those other proceedings);

(b)very substantial litigation funding is provided by Joanne and Melissa in their personal capacities, and by Mr Livingstone; and

(c)Anne Warner is indemnified in the proceeding by the Bill and Glenis Guest Family Trust. Bill Guest was Martin’s brother.

[4]                Having reviewed all those memoranda, I am reinforced in my preliminary view, for the reasons set out in my 12 April 2018 judgment. Costs are to lie where they fall.

—Jagose J

Details
AGLC
Guest v Warner [2018] NZHC 1150
Case
[2018] NZHC 1150
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Joanne Guest, Guest Trustee Limited, and Melissa Guest commenced proceedings against Julie Anne Warner in the High Court of New Zealand. The plaintiffs sought relief related to the Martin and Anne Guest Family Trust, with disputes concerning the trust's administration and management. Julie Anne Warner, a former trustee of the trust, was the defendant in the proceedings. The primary focus of the litigation was the resolution of disputes surrounding the administration of the trust and the conduct of the former trustee, Julie Anne Warner.

The court was required to determine the allocation of costs among the parties involved in the litigation. Specifically, the court had to consider the claims for costs submitted by Aaron Guest, a discretionary beneficiary of the trust, the plaintiffs, and Julie Anne Warner. Aaron Guest sought costs from the plaintiffs and another non-party, Basil Ian Livingstone. The plaintiffs sought costs from Julie Anne Warner, while Julie Anne Warner sought indemnity costs from the trust or uplifted costs from the plaintiffs. The court also had to consider the substantial litigation funding provided by the plaintiffs and Mr. Livingstone and the indemnity provided to Julie Anne Warner by another trust.

The court reviewed the submissions and responses from all parties and considered the reasons articulated in its earlier judgment. The court was reinforced in its preliminary view that costs should lie where they fall, and therefore, no party was to recover costs from another. The court concluded that the substantial litigation funding provided by the plaintiffs and Mr. Livingstone, as well as the indemnity provided to Julie Anne Warner by another trust, justified the decision to allocate costs to the parties themselves. This decision reflected the court's assessment of the unique circumstances of the case and the relationships between the parties.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.