Helen and Lucy Enterprises Ltd v Steve Taylor & Associates North Shore Ltd

[2018] NZHC 2795

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2018-404-2398

[2018] NZHC 2795

BETWEEN

HELEN AND LUCY ENTERPRISES LTD

Applicant

AND

STEVE TAYLOR & ASSOCIATES NORTH SHORE LTD

First Respondent

ROOPA SUNIL PATEL

Second Respondent

Hearing:	(On the papers)
Counsel:	R A Rosser for Applicant
Judgment:	29 October 2018

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

Solicitors:

Holland Beckett Law (Tauranga) for Applicant

HELEN AND LUCY ENTERPRISES LTD v STEVE TAYLOR & ASSOCIATES NORTH SHORE LTD [2018] NZHC 2795 [29 October 2018]

[1]                 The applicant has commenced a proceeding in this Court claiming damages against the respondents in respect of the second respondent’s discharge of her duties towards the applicant as its accountant and registered tax agent.

[2]                 The applicant has also applied without notice for freezing orders, or alternatively an interim injunction.

[3]                 Having read the affidavit of Helen Elizabeth Fraser, and the memorandum of counsel for the applicant, I am satisfied:

(a)The applicant has a good arguable case;

(b)There are assets to which a freezing order can attach; and

(c)There is a real risk the assets will be dissipated.

[4]                 I have considered the balance of convenience and interests of justice. If the applicant makes out its case, the respondents have, at best, discharged their professional obligations negligently or, at worst, fraudulently. The latter is a real possibility on the material provided to me. Two pieces of real property have been identified in which the second respondent has an interest. One is being marketed for sale. A freezing order, with leave reserved to the respondents and other interested parties to apply to vary or reverse it, will achieve a balance of convenience and be in the interests of justice.

[5]                 I make a freezing order pursuant to r 32.2 of the High Court Rules restraining the respondents from disposing of, dealing with, or diminishing the value of:

(a)The property contained in Certificate of Title 135C/824, commonly known as 21 Oakdale Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland (“the Mount Roskill Property”) and otherwise any proceeds of any sale of this property if the property is sold;

(b)The property contained in Certificate of Title NA634235, commonly known as 79 Medallion Drive, North Shore (“the North Shore

Property”) and otherwise any proceeds of any sale of this property if the property is sold.

[6]This freezing order shall remain in place pending further order of the Court.

[7]                 Leave is reserved to the respondents and to any other interested party, on notice to the applicant, to apply for the freezing order to be varied or removed.

[8]                 The applicant is to serve a copy of all documents filed in this proceeding to date, including a copy of this Judgment, without delay on the respondents and on all parties having a registered interest in the Mount Roskill Property and/or the North Shore Property.

[9]Costs are reserved.

Brewer J