Heenan v HFK Trustees Ltd - [2007] NZCA 93

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA225/06
CA257/06
[2007] NZCA 93
BETWEENDAVID STANLEY HEENAN & ORS

Appellants

ANDHFK TRUSTEES LIMITED

First Respondent
ANDEUAN HILSON, NEVILLE FAGERLUND AND MICHAEL KEYES

Second Respondents
ANDROBERTA JANE MARY HEENAN

Third Respondent
ANDPUBLIC TRUST

Fourth Respondent

Hearing:12 March 2007

Court:Hammond, Arnold and Wilson JJ
Counsel:D S Heenan in Person

P R W Chisnall for First and Second Respondents
H G P Stokes for Third and Fourth Respondents

Judgment:23 March 2007 at 11.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to appeal is dismissed, as is the application for an interim injunction.
BHFK Trustees Limited and the Public Trust Office will each have costs of $1,500 and usual disbursements.

REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Hammond J)
Table of Contents

Para No

INTRODUCTION  [1]
The time element  [3]
The merits of the appeal
Background  [4]
     The prior litigation  [11]
The existence of the Heenan Family Trust 1960[16]
Discussion  [21]
Introduction
[1]       Mr Heenan seeks leave to appeal, out of time, against a judgment of John Hansen J in the High Court at Invercargill (CIV 2005-425-223 7 September 2006).
[2]       In his papers, Mr Heenan raised numerous issues that were inappropriate, vexatious and indeed outrageous, by way of commentary on the High Court judgment and the position of various other Judges in this Court. This Court would have been well justified in refusing to consider the application, given the way in which it was couched. We have taken the view that it is better to deal with the application on the merits. But Mr Heenan can consider himself fortunate that we did not dismiss his application as an abuse of process.
The time element
[3]       As is often the case, once he decided to conduct this matter himself (as he is absolutely entitled to do) Mr Heenan soon found himself in procedural difficulties. It is unnecessary for present purposes to recite all those difficulties, and the mistakes he made. In summary, he filed in the wrong registry, he did not understand who his application had to be served on, and he got himself out of time. However the delay itself was not, in the end, marked and in this Court would not normally have led to this application being determined against him, if the appeal had any prospect of success. We now turn to that issue.
The merits of the appeal
Background
[4]       The history of Mr Heenan’s litigation is now hugely convoluted, but the immediate background to the matter which was before John Hansen J is that on 18 May 2005 HFK Trustees Limited brought interpleader proceedings in the High Court, pursuant to r 173 of the High Court Rules, in relation to a dispute between Mr Heenan and his former wife, Mrs Roberta Heenan, over a residual fund.
[5]       That is a fund which HFK Trustees Limited holds representing the balance following a mortgagee sale of a property at 11 Brunswick Street, Queenstown. HFK Trustees Limited was the seller of…

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 Heenan v HFK Trustees Ltd

Details

AGLC: Heenan v HFK Trustees Ltd [2007] NZCA 93
Case: [2007] NZCA 93
Decision Date: 23 March 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

David Stanley Heenan and others sought leave to appeal, out of time, against a judgment of the High Court at Invercargill, which dealt with an interpleader application concerning the distribution of a residual fund from a mortgagee sale of a property in Queenstown. The appeal was dismissed, as was an application for an interim injunction. The respondents were awarded costs.

The primary legal issue was whether the appellant had an arguable case for appeal. The appellant argued that the High Court judge had failed to consider evidence and deliberately ignored the existence of the Heenan Family Trust 1960. The Court of Appeal found that the High Court judge had properly considered the evidence and was not obliged to conduct a de novo review of previous litigation. The purported trust deed was deemed a forgery, and the appellant's claims were rejected on the evidence.

The Court of Appeal held that the appellant had procedural difficulties due to filing in the wrong registry and serving his application on the wrong parties. However, the delay itself was not fatal. The appeal was dismissed as there was no arguable case for appeal, and the application for an interlocutory injunction was also dismissed as misconceived. The Court of Appeal found the appellant's arguments to be vexatious and outrageous, but chose to deal with the application on the merits. The respondents were awarded costs of $1,500 each, with usual disbursements.

Orders