Leeds v Richards - [2016] NZHC 2248

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV 2016-404-140 [2016] NZHC 2248

UNDER the Insolvency (Cross-border) Act 2006

BETWEEN

MICHAEL THOMAS LEEDS AND NICHOLAS STEWART WOOD Applicants

AND

MURRAY RICHARDS First Respondent

STEINDLE WILLIAMS LEGAL LIMITED

Second Respondent

Hearing: 22 September 2016

Counsel:

S Bisley for Applicants
M Richards, in person, First Respondent
Appearance on behalf of Second Respondent excused

Judgment:

23 September 2016

JUDGMENT OF HEATH J

This judgment was delivered by me on 23 September 2016 at 10am pursuant to
Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Buddle Findlay, Auckland
Copy to:
M Richards, First Respondent

LEEDS AND WOOD v RICHARDS [2016] NZHC 2248 [23 September 2016]

[1] Mr Leeds and Mr Wood are trustees of the bankrupt estate of Mr Murray Richards. He was adjudged bankrupt by order of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales on 19 December 2014. On 5 February 2015, Mr Leeds and Mr Wood were appointed as joint trustees.

[2] On 18 November 2015, the County Court at Croydon, exercising jurisdiction in bankruptcy, made an order asking that this Court act in aid of and be auxiliary to the English bankruptcy. The purpose of the order was to enable the joint trustees to obtain access to information held by a firm of solicitors in New Zealand who were believed to have been instructed by Mr Richards. Any legal professional privilege that vested in Mr Richards has passed to his joint trustees by operation of law. That
includes situations in which he and another hold a joint privilege.1

[3] As a result of previous orders of this Court, Mr Steindle, of the firm of solicitors in issue, filed an affidavit in which he listed various “matters that [he believed] are covered by the terms of” the orders and directions given on 17 August and 7 September 2016. Mr Steindle confirmed that Steindle Williams Legal Ltd held documents in relation to those matters. A list of the “matters” was set out in Exhibit “A” to his affidavit.

[4] Mr Richards is currently challenging his order of adjudication in England, and a later order which suspended time running in respect of the period in which he would have expected to receive an automatic discharge from his bankruptcy. The orders are challenged on grounds of jurisdiction; Mr Richards says he was not domiciled in England and Wales at the time the orders were made. He also challenges the appropriateness of the appointment of the trustees, due to conflict of interest.

[5] I told Mr Richards that I was not prepared to embark upon a review of the validity of the orders made in England. After hearing from Mr Bisley, for Messrs
Leeds and Wood, and Mr Richards on 22 September 2016, I indicated the nature of

1 Wong v Official Assignee [1997] NZFLR 300 (HC), applying Re Konigsberg (A bankrupt)
[1989] 3 All ER 289 (ChD).

orders I intended to make and said that I would issue…

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 Leeds v Richards

Details

AGLC: Leeds v Richards [2016] NZHC 2248
Case: [2016] NZHC 2248
Decision Date: 23 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand was asked to assist the trustees of a bankrupt's estate in obtaining access to information held by a firm of New Zealand solicitors believed to have been instructed by the bankrupt, Murray Richards. The trustees, Michael Thomas Leeds and Nicholas Stewart Wood, sought to access information from Steindle Williams Legal Limited, which held documents in relation to matters listed in an affidavit by Mr Steindle, filed pursuant to previous Court orders. Richards, who is challenging his adjudication of bankruptcy in England, argued against the access on the grounds of jurisdiction and conflict of interest in the appointment of the trustees.

The court had to decide whether it should facilitate access to the information held by the New Zealand solicitors, considering the potential legal professional privilege that may apply to those documents. The court also needed to determine whether it should review the validity of the English orders, which appointed the trustees and adjudicated Richards bankrupt. Ultimately, the court decided not to review the validity of the English orders but to facilitate access to the information by appointing an independent solicitor to review the documents and determine which, if any, the trustees could access.

The court made several orders to assist the trustees in obtaining access to the documents. It appointed Mr Michael Whale, a Barrister and Solicitor, as an independent solicitor to review all files held by Steindle Williams Legal Limited and determine whether the trustees could waive legal professional privilege for those documents. Mr Whale was to prepare a report identifying the documents the trustees could access, those in which another entity held privilege, and those in which the trustees' ability to waive privilege was in doubt. The court reserved the question of costs related to the proceedings and fixed a date for further directions. The court also made orders regarding the procedure to be followed to resolve outstanding issues, the payment of Mr Whale's fees, and the provision of documents to him.

Orders