Guthrie v Williams

Case [2025] NZHC 1827


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CIV-2024-454-95 [2025] NZHC 1827

UNDERthe Trust Act 2019 and the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015

IN THE MATTER             of the breach of ss 45(d), 45(g) and 45(i) of

the Trust Act 2019 and s 19(1)(a) of the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015

BETWEEN  SCOTT STEPHEN GUTHRIE

Plaintiff

AND  NICOLA WILLIAMS

First Defendant

ROBERT FINCH

Second Defendant

SUSAN FREEMAN
Third Defendant

Hearing:                   5 June 2025 Appearances:  Plaintiff In Person

D R Weatherley for Defendants

Judgment                 4 July 2025


JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE SKELTON


Introduction

[1]                 These proceedings relate to a charitable trust, the Transforming Justice Foundation (the Trust). The plaintiff founded the Trust, and the defendants became trustees. The plaintiff alleges he has suffered loss because of breaches of the Trusts Act 2019 by the defendants. He also alleges that the third defendant committed

GUTHRIE v WILLIAMS [2025] NZHC 1827 [4 July 2025]

perjury, and he seeks an order that all electronic media publications making false allegations or insinuations about him relating to the Trust be removed.

[2]                 The defendants have applied for strike out of the plaintiff’s claim, and/or summary judgment against the plaintiff on the basis that there is no tenable cause of action pleaded and the plaintiff’s claim cannot succeed. They also apply for orders as to costs.

Background and Procedural History

[3]                 On 10 July 2019, the plaintiff (Mr Guthrie) established the Trust. The trust deed itself did not identify the trustees, but he was the sole founding trustee.

[4]                 On 1 September 2019, Mr Guthrie retired as trustee, and appointed the first and second defendants (Ms Williams, then named Ms O’Leary, and Mr Finch, respectively) as trustees in his place. Mr Guthrie remained employed by the Trust, as its CEO. On 18 May 2020, Mr Finch appointed the third defendant (Ms Freeman) as trustee. The trust deed was amended in July 2020.

[5]                 From 6 June 2020, the Trust employed Christine Rankin as spokesperson on child abuse issues.1 Mr Guthrie did not inform the Trust about Mrs Rankin’s employment, and when she raised concerns with non-payment of her salary, he paid her $10,000 from his personal bank account, listing the name of the Trust and his name in the payment details.2

[6]                 On 31 January 2021, Mr Finch, in his position as Board Chairperson, terminated Mr Guthrie’s employment and advised him to cease all activities on behalf of the Trust.3 The reason given for this was that Mr Guthrie had engaged Mrs Rankin as an employee without the knowledge of the Board, damaging the image and credibility of the Trust and rendering it liable for remuneration payments, risking it being wound up. In March 2021, the Department of Internal Affairs issued a report


1      As established by Rankin v Transforming Justice Foundation [2023] NZERA 420 [First ERA Determination].

2      Rankin v Transforming Justice Foundation [2024] NZERA 145 [Second ERA Determination] at [50].

3 At [17].

which concluded…

Details
AGLC
Guthrie v Williams [2025] NZHC 1827
Case
[2025] NZHC 1827
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Guthrie v Williams involved Scott Guthrie, the founder of the Transforming Justice Foundation, suing the trustees Nicola Williams, Robert Finch, and Susan Freeman for alleged breaches of the Trusts Act 2019. Guthrie also claimed that Freeman committed perjury and sought an order for the removal of false media publications about him. The defendants applied for the claim to be struck out or for summary judgment, arguing that Guthrie's claim had no prospect of success and that he lacked standing. The court considered the principles for striking out claims and granting summary judgment, emphasising the need for a claim to be tenable and not speculative. The court found that Freeman's status as a trustee and the perjury claim were untenable as Freeman's affidavit clarified her position and perjury is a criminal matter. Regarding the claim for reimbursement of legal liability, the court determined that Guthrie's inability to access Trust documents did not cause his loss, as he was not working for the Trust at the relevant time. Lastly, the court held that Guthrie's claim for the removal of electronic media publications was untenable as the defendants had no control over those publications. The court struck out Guthrie's claim and granted summary judgment in favour of the defendants, awarding costs to the defendants on a standard basis.

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.