IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CIV-2018-404-0493
[2018] NZHC 1889
BETWEEN EVAN DUNCAN INNES-JONES
Plaintiff
AND
REX ARTHUR INNES-JONES
First Defendant
SAILOR’S CORNER LIMITED
Second DefendantIJAY PROPERTIES LIMITED
Third Defendant
Hearing: 18 July 2018 Appearances:
J D Turner for Plaintiff
A E Hansen for Defendants
Judgment:
27 July 2018
JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J
This judgment is delivered by me on 27 July 2018 at 4.00pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.
.....................................................
Registrar / Deputy Registrar
Solicitors:
McVeagh Fleming, Albany Heimsath Alexander, Auckland
INNES-JONES v INNES-JONES & ORS [2018] NZHC 1889 [27 July 2018]
Introduction
[1] Evan Innes-Jones and Rex Innes-Jones are brothers. They are the shareholders of both Sailors’ Corner Limited – a marine chandlery business operating from premises on Westhaven Drive and Beaumont Street in Auckland – and Ijay Properties Limited, which owns the Beaumont Street premises (on a groundlease from Viaduct Harbour Holdings Limited) and leases them to Sailors’ Corner. Evan holds 35,000 shares, and Rex 45,000 shares, in each company. The shareholdings reflect the brothers’ initial capital contributions: Evan, $35,000, and Rex, $45,000.
[2] In this proceeding, Evan complains Rex is conducting the companies’ affairs in a manner unfairly prejudicial to Evan as shareholder. Evan seeks relief under s 174(2) of the Companies Act 1993 by way of Rex’s acquisition of Evan’s shares, or Rex’s payment of compensation to Evan, or the companies’ liquidation. Rex denies there is anything unfairly prejudicial to Evan in Rex’s conduct of the companies’ affairs, which are conducted in the companies’ best interests.
Background
[3] Both men worked in the Sailors’ Corner business: Rex as managing director, and Evan as company secretary (while maintaining other business interests). From its inception in 1983, Sailors’ Corner presented itself as a ‘one-stop shop’ for boat owners. Blessed by its proximity to Westhaven Marina, and its initial local monopoly, the business prospered, with an annual turnover of over $5m by the 1990s. The Sailors’ Corner workforce included Rex’s wife and their sons, and Evan’s wife and their daughter. Rex’s family members mostly worked full-time as employees in the business; Evan’s family members mostly worked as casual employees when required.
[4] Evan and Rex originally were each directors in both Sailors’ Corner and Ijay Properties. They were remunerated at agreed hourly rates, in a manner intended transparently to reflect their input into the business consistently with other managers. But their wages periodically were ‘topped up’ from operating surpluses to double their earnings over the preceding period, and then supplemented by any profit share. The ‘top up’ and profit share were made available to Evan and Rex as a ‘bonus’, which each would apportion between himself and his family. They used their ownership of
Ijay Properties also to extract surplus from the business as rental or other emoluments to their personal benefits from the business. Both wives initially were paid salaries, but that reverted also to hourly rates in later straightened…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Innes-Jones v Innes-Jones and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2018] NZHC 1889
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that Evan had failed to establish that the affairs of Sailors’ Corner and Ijay Properties had been, were being, or were likely to be, conducted in a manner unfairly prejudicial to him. The court examined the companies' history, structure, and the reasonable expectations of the shareholders. While there were disagreements between the brothers, the court found that there was nothing unjustly detrimental to Evan in Rex's management of the companies' affairs. The court also found that the shareholders' original expectations, to favour the business' success and participants' reward over any determined return on shareholders' investment, were not unjustly detrimental to Evan in the companies' present circumstances. Therefore, the court dismissed Evan's application for orders under s 174.
In principle, the defendants were entitled to costs, but the court doubted that would be constructive and suggested that the parties could agree on a compromise. If not, costs were to be determined on short memoranda.
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.