Hansard v Hansard - [2013] NZHC 1692

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2011-404-006078 [2013] NZHC 1692

BETWEEN GERALD GUY HANSARD AND DIANA HANSARD AS TRUSTEES OF THE G G HANSARD FAMILY TRUST NO 2
Plaintiffs

ANDDAVID GUY HANSARD AND SHARON GRACE HANSARD AS TRUSTEES OF THE D & S HANSARD FAMILY TRUST
Defendants

Hearing: 11-13 February 2013

Appearances: D J Chisholm for Plaintiffs
K P McDonald for First named Defendant
P J Kennelly for Second named Defendant

Judgment: 4 July 2013

JUDGMENT OF ELLIS J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Ellis on 4 July 2013 at 4.30 pm
pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Date……………………..

HANSARD v HANSARD [2013] NZHC 1692 [4 July 2013]

[1] The plaintiff trust seeks recovery of a $1,222,658 debt said to be owed to it by the defendant trust.

[2] Underlying the claim is a series of inter-generational dealings involving entities owned or controlled by members of the Hansard family.[1] The dispute has arisen largely because:
[1] Because all four parties to these proceedings have the same surname, I refer to each by his or her christian name in this judgment. No disrespect is intended.

(a) there is an absence of formal documentation in relation to some of the transactions said to give rise to the debt; and

(b)there is a relationship property dispute between the defendant trustees, David and Sharon Hansard.

The parties and associated entities

[3] It is necessary first to say a little more about the parties and certain other entities associated with them.

[4] The plaintiffs, Gerald and Diana Hansard, are the trustees of the G G Hansard

Family Trust No 2 (the G G Trust). The G G Trust was settled on 6 March 1966.

[5] Gerald and Diana settled another trust, the G & D Hansard Family Trust (the G & D Trust), on 20 September 1993. Their three children are the beneficiaries of that Trust, which has provided assistance to each of them in various ways over the years.

[6] As I have said, the defendants, David and Sharon Hansard, are the trustees of the D & S Hansard Family Trust (the D & S Trust). The D & S Trust was settled on
19 September 2003. David Hansard is one of Gerald and Diana’s children. Sharon is his estranged wife. David and Sharon were married in 1999, although they had been a couple for some time prior to that. The point at which they separated appears
to be in dispute; Sharon says it was in 2008 whereas David says it was in mid 2010.

[7] David and Sharon are also the directors and shareholders of MH Publications Ltd (MHP), which was incorporated on 5 October 1995. MHP operates a printing business.

[8] David has admitted the debt said to be owed by the D & S Trust to the G G Trust. Sharon does not. She has pleaded a number of affirmative defences to the debt claim, which are set out at…

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 Hansard v Hansard

Details

AGLC: Hansard v Hansard [2013] NZHC 1692
Case: [2013] NZHC 1692
Decision Date: 4 July 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand was asked to determine whether the defendant trust owed a debt of $1,222,658 to the plaintiff trust. The underlying dispute arose from a series of inter-generational transactions involving entities owned or controlled by members of the Hansard family. The plaintiff trust, the G G Hansard Family Trust No 2, is held by Gerald and Diana Hansard. The defendant trust, the D & S Hansard Family Trust, is held by David and Sharon Hansard. David is one of Gerald and Diana's children. The dispute largely stems from an absence of formal documentation in relation to some of the transactions and a relationship property dispute between David and Sharon. The court had to decide whether the defendant trust owed the debt claimed by the plaintiff trust, and if so, whether any of the defendant's pleaded defences were valid.

The court found that the defendant trust did owe the debt to the plaintiff trust. The evidence indicated that the plaintiff trust had advanced funds to the defendant's company, which had been used to purchase assets that were later transferred to the defendant trust. The transactions were financed by advances from the plaintiff trust. Although there was no formal documentation, the court found that the transactions were reflected in the financial statements of the relevant entities. The court rejected the defendant's defences, including the claim of lack of unanimity, breach of fiduciary duty, and estoppel. The court held that the plaintiff trust had met its burden of proof and that the defendant trust must repay the debt of $1,222,658 to the plaintiff trust.

In conclusion, the High Court of New Zealand ruled in favour of the plaintiff trust, ordering the defendant trust to pay the sum of $1,222,658, plus interest and costs. The court dismissed all defences raised by the defendant trust and held that the debt was valid and enforceable.

Orders