Guest v Warner - [2017] NZHC 921

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CIV-2015-488-183 [2017] NZHC 921

UNDER the Trustee Act 1956

BETWEEN

JOANNE ELIZABETH GUEST, GUEST TRUSTEE LIMITED, AS TRUSTEES IN THE MARTIN AND ANNE GUEST FAMILY TRUST AND

GUEST INVESTMENT TRUST LIMITED

First Plaintiffs

MELISSA ANNE GUEST AND

JOANNE ELIZABETH GUEST

AS EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF MARY ANNE GUEST

Second Plaintiffs

AND

JUDITH ANNE WARNER Defendant

CIV-2016-488-15

BETWEEN JOANNE ELIZABETH GUEST AND
GUEST TRUSTEE LIMITED AS TRUSTEES IN THE MARTIN AND ANNE GUEST FAMILY TRUST First Plaintiffs

MELISSA ANNE GUEST and JOANNE ELIZABETH GUEST AS EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF MARY ANNE GUEST
Second Plaintiffs

ANDGLENIS DOREEN GUEST AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM JOHN GUEST
First Defendant

GUEST v GUEST and WARNER [2017] NZHC 921 [3 May 2017]

IAN CLIFFORD WALKER AND GLENIS DOREEN GUEST AS TRUSTEES OF THE BILL AND GLENIS GUEST FAMILY TRUST Second Defendants

CIV-2016-488-102

BETWEEN AARON NICHOLAS GUEST Plaintiff

ANDMELISSA ANNE GUEST AND
JOANNE ELIZABETH GUEST
AS EXECUTORS AND TRUSTEES OF THE ESTATE OF MARY ANNE GUEST FirstDefendant

MELISSA ANNE GUEST AND
JOANNE ELIZABETH GUEST
AS EXECUTORS AND TRUSTEES OF THE ESTATE OF NICHOLAS MARTIN GUEST
Second Defendants

JOANNE ELIZABETH GUEST AND
GUEST TRUSTEE LIMITED
AS TRUSTEES OF THE MARTIN AND ANNE GUEST FAMILY TRUST
Third Defendants

Hearing: 3 May 2017

Appearances:

G Mathieson for Plaintiffs in the 183 and 15 proceedings and for defendants in the 102 proceeding

C M Webster for defendants in the 183 and 15 proceedings
No appearance for Aaron Guest, plaintiff in the 102 proceeding

Judgment:

3 May 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE R M BELL

Introduction

[1] The plaintiffs in CIV-2015-488-183 (“the 183 proceeding”) and CIV-2016-

488-15 (“the 15 proceeding”) apply for further discovery under r 8.19 of the High Court Rules. The proceedings are between different arms of the Guest family. I will call them the “Martin Guest group” and the “Bill Guest group”. Martin and Bill were brothers. They farmed at Te Kopuru near Dargaville. Their parents bought the original farm back in 1945. In the 1970s their father transferred the farm to the brothers. At that stage Bill was living on his own and Martin was married to Anne. Bill took title to some lots, Martin and Anne took title to other lots of land. Bill and Martin acquired the livestock, farm equipment, and a contracting business which they owned in equal shares. They formed a partnership. That partnership operated the farm. The partnership leased the land from Bill on the one hand and Martin on the other. Over time the farm has expanded with neighbouring lots bought. There was no written lease between the partnership and any of the land-owners. Equally, there was no written partnership agreement between Bill and Martin.

[2] Martin and Anne’s children are Melissa, Aaron, Philip and Joanne. In the

1980s, Bill married Glenis Guest. The children of Bill and Glenis are Lana, Emma

and Sam. The partnership between Martin and Bill lasted until Martin’s death in

2012.

[3] In…

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 Guest v Warner

Details

AGLC: Guest v Warner [2017] NZHC 921
Case: [2017] NZHC 921
Decision Date: 3 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves several members of the Guest family, including the Martin and Bill Guest families, who are involved in a dispute over the family farm and associated partnerships. The proceedings include applications for further discovery under the High Court Rules by the plaintiffs, who seek access to various financial records and documents related to the family farm and partnerships. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the discovery of certain documents from the defendants in the 15 proceeding. The court considered both procedural discovery under the High Court Rules and substantive disclosure under the Partnership Act 1908. The court found that the plaintiffs were entitled to the discovery of certain documents, including insurance invoices, electricity and telephone invoices, legal invoices, and bank account statements, to facilitate a final settlement of accounts for the dissolution of the partnership. The court also directed the defendants to provide access to National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) records and to provide an affidavit by the accountant explaining the accounting records kept on the Xero system. The court reserved costs on the application, noting the extensive cooperation between the parties, and set further case management directions, including the filing of fresh statements of claim and defence, and a conference for trial directions or alternative dispute resolution. The final orders of the court included directions for the disclosure of certain documents, the provision of authorities to access specific records, and the filing of fresh statements of claim and defence within specified timeframes.

Orders