Leeds v Richards - [2016] NZHC 2118

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2016-404-000140 [2016] NZHC 2118

BETWEEN
MICHAEL THOMAS LEEDS AND

NICHOLAS STEWART WOOD Applicants

AND

MURRAY RICHARDS First Respondent

STEINDLE WILLIAMS LEGAL LIMITED

Second Respondent

Hearing: 1 September 2016

Appearances:

S Bisley for the Applicants
The First Respondent by telephone in Person
P Davey for the Second Respondent

Judgment:

7 September 2016

JUDGMENT OF HINTON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 7 September 2016 at 2.15 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

……………………………………………………………………
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Counsel/Solicitors:
S Bisley, Buddle Findlay, Wellington
P Davey, Barrister, Auckland

Party:
M Richards

LEEDS AND WOOD v RICHARDS [2016] NZHC 2118 [7 September 2016]

[1] Mr Richards has applied to review three decisions of Associate Judge Bell. The first is a decision dated 3 June 2016 where Associate Judge Bell dismissed Mr Richards’ stay application and made pre-trial directions, including a direction that the second respondent, Steindle Williams Legal Ltd, file an affidavit. The second two decisions are both timetabling directions relating to the filing date of the Steindle Williams affidavit.

Background

[2] The background to these review applications is that Messrs Leeds and Wood (the English trustees) have brought an originating application, seeking that a bankruptcy order obtained in England against Mr Richards, be recognised in New Zealand, and seeking an order that they can obtain information from Steindle Williams (Mr Richards’ former solicitors) relevant to the bankruptcy.

[3] The originating application is set down for hearing on 22 September 2016.

[4] Mr Richards, who is an Australian resident, applied for a stay of the originating application on the grounds that an Australian court is a more appropriate forum. In the judgment of 3 June 2016, Associate Judge Bell refused the stay and, inter alia, directed that Steindle Williams file and serve an affidavit setting out on what matters (if any) it acted for Mr Richards, or any entities associated with Mr Richards, and whether it holds any documents relating to those matters. Associate Judge Bell explained in a later Minute that his reason for making that direction was to ensure that, at the hearing of the originating application, the Court could mould any orders it might make with regard to specific files and records held by Steindle Williams.

[5] Mr Richards did not attend the hearing of his own stay application, despite an adjournment and telephone contact being made available, which Associate Judge Bell records in his 3 June 2016 judgment. Following receipt of the judgment, Mr Richards indicated that he intended to appeal. In a Minute dated 10 June 2016, Associate Judge Bell explained the appropriate course was to apply for a review.

Mr Richards then wrote back to the Court indicating that he intended to review the judgment. However, he did not file the application to review until 3 August 2016.

[6] The two timetabling decisions arose because the 3 June 2016 direction that Steindle Williams file the affidavit, did not specify a date for filing and…

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 2118
Case: [2016] NZHC 2118
Decision Date: 7 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Leeds and Wood v Richards, the applicants sought recognition in New Zealand of a bankruptcy order obtained against Murray Richards in England, along with an order to obtain information from Steindle Williams Legal Ltd, Mr Richards' former solicitors. The applicants were represented by S Bisley, while the first respondent appeared in person, and the second respondent was represented by P Davey. The case was heard by Hinton J on 1 September 2016 and a judgment was delivered on 7 September 2016.

The legal issues before the court were whether to extend the time for filing a review application and the appropriateness of the direction that Steindle Williams file an affidavit setting out on what matters (if any) it acted for Mr Richards or any entities associated with him, and whether it holds any documents relating to those matters. The court found that the application for review was filed two months late, which caused prejudice to the English trustees due to the proximity of the substantive hearing. Despite this, the court decided to grant an extension of time, and the applications to review, to the following extent only: Steindle Williams was to file and serve by 3.00 pm on Friday 9 September 2016, an affidavit listing matters where it acted for Mr Richards and as to whether it holds any documents relating to those matters, and in a sealed envelope, an affidavit listing matters where it acted for entities associated with Mr Richards and as to whether it holds any documents relating to those matters. The Judge at the 22 September 2016 hearing shall open the envelope and provide a copy of the affidavit to counsel for the English trustees, immediately after a positive ruling on the originating application, with a view to final orders being made at that hearing, or as soon as possible thereafter. The orders and directions made by Associate Judge Bell otherwise stand.

The court also addressed the applications to review the timetabling directions in relation to the Steindle Williams affidavit, which were covered by the rulings made. The court noted that there was no order as to costs, and no order was made preserving the position with Steindle Williams files.

Orders