Jones v Llanhennock Trust Partnership - [2020] NZHC 1409

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CIV-2020-419-53

[2020] NZHC 1409

BETWEEN
GREGORY JOHN JONES

Appellant

AND

LLANHENNOCK TRUST PARTNERSHIP

First Respondent

CAMBRIDGE VETERINARY SERVICES (1980) LIMITED

Second Respondent

VETERINARY PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE SOCIETY (INC)

Third Respondent

Hearing: 19 June 2020

Appearances:

Appellant in person

A Darroch for Second and Third Respondents

Judgment:

22 June 2020

INTERIM JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on appeal against refusal to order discovery by non-parties]

This judgment was delivered by me on 22 June 2020 at 3.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date……………

Solicitors:
Darroch Forrest, Wellington Copy to:
Appellant

JONES v LLANHENNOCK TRUST PARTNERSHIP [2020] NZHC 1409 [22 June 2020]

[1] Mr Jones has been the owner of several thoroughbred horses. He engaged the first respondent, the Llanhennock Trust Partnership (the partnership), to provide breeding and agistment services for his horses. The partnership alleges Mr Jones now owes it the sum of approximately $180,000 by way of outstanding fees. It has filed a proceeding in the District Court to recover this sum.

[2] Mr Jones denies he owes anything to the partnership. He contends the partnership failed to act in good faith towards him and deliberately mistreated his horses with the intent of causing him financial and other harm. Mr Jones says the partnership was assisted in doing so by the first respondent, Cambridge Veterinary Services (1980) Limited (CVS). He has not joined CVS as a party to the proceeding but he sought non-party discovery against both CVS and its insurer, the Veterinary Profession Insurance Society (Inc) (VPI). The District Court made a discovery order against both CVS and VPI on 9 August 2019.

[3] CVS and VPI subsequently filed affidavits in compliance with the order but Mr Jones contended they did not comply with the rules relating to discovery and failed to list relevant documents. He then applied to the District Court for orders requiring both respondents to provide further discovery.

[4] In a judgment delivered on 28 November 2019, Judge R L B Spear dismissed Mr Jones’ application.1 Mr Jones appeals against that decision.

The Judge’s decision

[5] The Judge gave his reasons for declining Mr Jones’ application in the following paragraphs of his decision:2
[13] I am unable to avoid the conclusion that the approach adopted by Mr Jones in this respect is nothing more than a “fishing expedition”. His essential complaint is that the plaintiffs have effectively conspired with CVS to cause him harm through the ill-treatment or mistreatment of his horses. That is a serious allegation, particularly as it calls into question the professionalism of CVS and raises questions as to why anyone in the position of the plaintiff or CVS would have any reason for acting in this way.

1 Llanhennock Trust Partnership v Jones [2019] NZDC 23729.
2 Llanhennock Trust Partnership v Jones, above n 1.

[14] If Mr Jones’ real complaint is that the plaintiffs have been negligent in…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Jones v Llanhennock Trust Partnership 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] NZHC 1409
Decision Date: 22 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Gregory John Jones appealed against the decision of the District Court which dismissed his application for further discovery from non-parties. Jones was engaged in a dispute with the Llanhennock Trust Partnership over fees allegedly owed by Jones for breeding and agistment services provided by the Partnership. Jones claimed that the Partnership and Cambridge Veterinary Services (CVS) had conspired to cause harm to his horses. He sought further discovery from CVS and its insurer, Veterinary Professional Insurance Society (VPI), but the District Court dismissed his application. Jones appealed against the decision.

The court was required to decide whether the District Court was correct in dismissing Jones' application for further discovery from CVS and VPI. Jones contended that CVS had not fully complied with the rules relating to discovery and failed to list relevant documents. The court examined whether the affidavits of documents filed by CVS and VPI met the requirements of Rule 8.15 of the District Courts Rules 2014, and whether CVS had carried out a reasonable search for documents within the scope of the discovery order.

The court found that the affidavits filed by CVS and VPI were sufficient for present purposes. The affidavit of documents filed by CVS was prepared by its solicitors and contained all the required particulars. The affidavit filed by VPI stated that the organisation did not hold any documents relevant to Jones' claim other than the claim form it received from CVS. The court rejected Jones' contention that VPI's affidavit should have been sworn by an officer of the organisation. The court also found that issues of proportionality were likely to arise if CVS was required to examine its records to identify documents relating to the treatment of yearling colts suffering from a swollen hock where radiography had not revealed any underlying bone injury. The court directed CVS to provide a further affidavit setting out the likely time, effort and cost required to identify and list the documents Jones seeks.

The appeal failed in relation to all issues other than that relating to the treatment of other colts presenting with the same or similar symptoms to that of the colt Adalia. Once CVS had filed and served its affidavit dealing with that issue, Jones would have seven days to make submissions regarding the orders (if any) that the court should make as a result. CVS would then have seven days within which to respond to Jones' submissions and he would have seven days to reply. The court would then deal with the issue on the papers. Costs would be determined once the final outcome of the appeal was known.

Orders