Lee v Lee - [2016] NZHC 1073

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

ROTORUA REGISTRY

CIV 2010-463-000430

[2016] NZHC 1073

BETWEEN
ROBERT LEE as trustee of the Estate of J G Lee

First Plaintiff

HELEN HEARD as trustee of the Estate of J G Lee

Second Plaintiff

AND

GREGORY LEE

First Defendant

AND

GREGORY LEE and JANE LOIS LEE

Second Defendant

Hearing: 19 May 2016

Appearances:

R Lee in person the First Plaintiff D Chambers QC for the Defendants

Judgment:

23 May 2016

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE CHRISTIANSEN

This judgment was delivered by me on
23.05.16 at 4:30pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date……………

R LEE AND H HEARD v G LEE AND J L LEE [2016] NZHC 1073 [23 May 2016]

Applications

[1] The defendants have applied for security for costs, particular discovery, and seek directions as to separate trials and representation.

[2] The first plaintiff (Mr Lee) has filed on behalf of he and the second plaintiff a notice of opposition to the defendants’ applications. As well he files his own application for particular discovery and an application for orders for discovery from non-parties.

Mr Lee’s applications

Particular discovery

[3] Discovery is sought of the completed financial statements for High Duty Plastics Limited (HDP) for the years:

(a) 1998, 1999 and 2000.

(b) 2001 and 2002

(c) 2003 to 2016 (inclusive).

Non-party discovery

[4]The non-party discovery application seeks the recovery of:

(a)Medical records of the parties’ father from Dr MacLean of the Western Heights Medical Centre; and

(b)From the law firm Reeder Smith & Co and its principal Mr Smith documents “which may be relevant to these proceedings”.

Considerations

[5] In discussion with Ms Chambers and Mr Lee the Court was advised the defendants do not oppose the non-party orders application. However as Ms Chambers noted the orders cannot be made because the non-parties in question have not been served with any notice of an application.

[6] For the reasons identified by Ms Chambers the Court could not consider those applications.

[7] Regarding Mr Lee’s particular discovery applications the Court heard the submissions of the parties and ruled that the HDP financial statements for the years 1998 – 2000, 2001 and 2002 were discoverable by the defendants. In the Court’s view those might be relevant to the transactions recorded by deeds completed in 1997 and 2000 which are the primary documents for consideration in this proceeding. The Court considers the other financial statements concern issues of quantum and not liability and as this judgment will later note the Court’s present focus is upon issues of liability only.

The defendants’ applications

Whether Mr Lee be permitted to represent the second plaintiff

[8] This matter, requiring direction, is about the second plaintiff who is Mr Lee’s sister. Together they are the executors of their late mother’s estate.

[9] Mr Lee supports his sister’s request. Mr Lee says he has represented her until now. The Court of Appeal did not oppose Mr Lee appearing for both plaintiffs in their successful appeal…

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 Lee v Lee

Details

AGLC: Lee v Lee [2016] NZHC 1073
Case: [2016] NZHC 1073
Decision Date: 23 May 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved a dispute between the plaintiffs, Robert Lee and Helen Heard, as trustees of their late mother's estate, and the defendants, Gregory Lee and Jane Lois Lee, over matters related to the ownership and value of shares in High Duty Plastics Limited (HDP). The case was heard in the High Court of New Zealand. The legal issues included whether particular discovery orders should be granted for financial statements, whether Mr. Lee could represent his sister as the second plaintiff, whether the trial should be conducted in separate parts for liability and quantum, and whether security for costs should be ordered.

The court ruled that the HDP financial statements for the years 1998 to 2002 were discoverable as they might be relevant to the transactions recorded by deeds completed in 1997 and 2000. However, the court denied the application for non-party discovery as the required notices had not been served. Regarding Mr. Lee's representation of his sister, the court decided against it, citing the complexity of the case and the need for independent counsel. The court also ruled that the trial should proceed in two parts, first determining liability and then quantum, as these issues were sufficiently distinct. Finally, the court ordered security for costs in the form of a second registered mortgage over Mr. Lee's property, to be provided within 21 days.

This case highlights the court's considerations in managing complex litigation involving family trusts and business interests, the importance of independent legal representation, and the balancing of the need for security for costs against the right to pursue a claim.

Orders