Legal Research
Cases
Keir v Simms

Keir v Simms

Case [2024] NZHC 1996 19 July 2024

Discovery & Disclosure

Jurisdiction

Contract Formation

Unconscionable Conduct

Equitable Estoppel

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Property Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2022-404-000458

[2024] NZHC 1996

BETWEEN RACHAEL KEIR and JOHN RICHARD KEIR
Plaintiffs

AND

ROBERT SIMMS and LYNETTE JEAN SIMMS

Defendants

Hearing: 9 May 2024

Appearances:

N Woods for the Plaintiffs

D Bigio KC / D T Horton / P K J Roycroft for the Defendants D MacKenzie for the Non-Party

Judgment:

19 July 2024

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE GARDINER

This judgment was delivered by me on 19 July 2024 at 3.30 p.m. pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date.......................................

Solicitors:

Rice Craig, Auckland
Thomas Gibbons Law, Auckland D Bigio KC, Auckland

KEIR v SIMMS [2024] NZHC 1996 [19 July 2024]

Introduction

[1] This proceeding concerns a dairy farm owned by Robert and Lynette Simms (the Simms) situated on Glenbrook Beach Road. The farm comprises a large 76.8 ha block and a smaller 11.69 ha block connected by an underpass under Glenbrook Beach Road. The larger block (the Home Dairy Farm) contains the farm infrastructure and the Simms’ home.

[2] The Simms’ son, Bruce Simms (Bruce),1 owns a 12.7 ha block next to his parents’ smaller lot. He leases that land to his parents for their farming operation. The Simms’ daughter and her husband, Rachael and John Keir (the Keirs), own lots next to the one owned by Bruce. Although the Keirs’ lots were previously leased to the Simms, that is no longer the case. The Keirs’ family home is situated on the Home Dairy Farm, next door to the Simms.

[3] In this proceeding, the Keirs advance an equitable claim (in the form of either a common intention/resulting trust, constructive trust, or equitable estoppel/unjust enrichment) for a share of the Simms’ farm. Their claim is based on an alleged common intention that the Keirs would succeed the Simms in owning and operating the Home Dairy Farm, and/or contributions purportedly made towards the farm from 2011 to around July 2019. At this point, the relationship between the Keirs and Simms deteriorated, and the Keirs ended their involvement in farm operations.

[4] The interest claimed by the Keirs amounts to 54.2 per cent of the Home Dairy Farm, or, more specifically, the house the Keirs have built on the Home Dairy Farm and the 15 acres around that house, plus an additional 44.5 per cent of the Home Dairy Farm.

[5] This judgment determines two interlocutory applications. The first is an application by the Simms for orders relating to Mrs Keir’s medical records and the passwords for the Simms’ email account and/or laptop. The second is an application

1 No disrespect is intended by referring to Bruce Simms by his first name. Rather, it is merely to distinguish between him and his father, Robert Simms (Mr Simms).

by the Keirs for a non-party discovery order against Bruce for documents and classes of documents relating to the farm. Both interlocutory applications are opposed.

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 Keir v Simms

Details

AGLC: Keir v Simms [2024] NZHC 1996
Case: [2024] NZHC 1996
Decision Date: 19 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Keir v Simms involves a dispute between the Simms, owners of a dairy farm, and the Keirs, their former neighbours and former farm workers. The Keirs seek to claim a share of the Simms' farm on the basis of alleged contributions they made to the farm operations from 2011 to 2019. The Simms oppose the claim and have raised issues regarding the Keirs' capability to make the claimed contributions. The proceedings include two interlocutory applications: the Simms' application to access Mrs Keir's medical records and the Simms' email account, and the Keirs' application for non-party discovery against Bruce Simms.

The Simms' application focuses on Mrs Keir's medical records and supplement lists, which they argue are relevant to their defence that her ill health prevented her from making the claimed contributions. The Court found that medical records concerning Mrs Keir's health over the relevant period are relevant to the proceeding. The Court also considered that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the potential harm to Mrs Keir, and ordered that the medical records be made available for restricted inspection by the Simms' counsel and expert.

The Simms also sought access to their farm email account and a laptop, which Mrs Keir had returned to them. The Court found that the email account, as the farm's official account, was in the control of the Simms. The Court ordered Mrs Keir to provide the necessary login credentials. Regarding the laptop, the Court found that Mrs Keir was required to provide the password if she no longer knew it.

The Keirs' application for non-party discovery against Bruce sought various categories of documents related to farm operations and management from 2019 onwards. The Court assessed the relevance and necessity of the documents, considering that only documents relevant to the issues defined by the pleadings are discoverable. The Court ordered Bruce to provide specific documents related to farm restructuring and recruitment, while rejecting overly broad requests. The Court also directed the Keirs to refine their discovery requests to avoid duplication and ensure proportionality.

The Court ordered the Keirs to pay the Simms' costs on a scale 2B basis and invited submissions on costs related to the Keirs' application.

Orders