Lipsham v Helmbright - [2022] NZHC 1350

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CIV-2020-488-000088

[2022] NZHC 1350

BETWEEN
MARK EDWARD LIPSHAM

Plaintiff

AND

KIM KATHERINE HELMBRIGHT

Defendant

Hearing: 23 May 2022

Appearances:

S L Cogan for the Plaintiff Defendant in Person

Judgment:

9 June 2022

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE GARDINER

This judgment was delivered by me on 9 June 2022 at 3.30 p.m. pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date.......................................

Solicitors:

Lodder Law Limited, Auckland
S L Cogan, Quay Chambers, Auckland Copy for:
K K Helmbright, Whangarei

LIPSHAM v HELMBRIGHT [2022] NZHC 1350 [9 June 2022]

Introduction

[1] In 2017, Mark Lipsham’s life changed when he won approximately $17 million on Lotto. He met Kim Helmbright in 2019, and engaged her to advise him on financial, property, spiritual and personal matters. By December 2019, he had paid her approximately $2.8 million. By May 2020, their relationship had broken down.

[2] This proceeding concerns whether the $2.8 million Mr Lipsham paid Ms Helmbright was, as Mr Lipsham contends, for Ms Helmbright to buy one or more properties for him. Or, as Ms Helmbright contends, payment under a “Freelancing Agreement” under which she was to provide him with the described services.

[3] In this application, Mr Lipsham seeks particular discovery of categories of documents relating to the $2.8 million he paid, properties Ms Helmbright investigated for him and properties she bought for herself, and the services she provided to Mr Lipsham. Ms Helmbright opposes the application on the grounds that the documents are either not in her possession or control; or are confidential and/or legally privileged.

[4] During the hearing Ms Helmbright agreed to discover some of the categories she had previously contested.

Background

Facts

[5] In or around October 2019, Mr Lipsham engaged Ms Helmbright to provide him with financial, property, personal and spiritual services. Over a period of approximately two months, Mr Lipsham paid Ms Helmbright approximately $70,000 for these services.1

[6] Amongst other services, Ms Helmbright was to act on behalf of Mr Lipsham to buy one or more properties in his name.2

1 Statement of claim dated 27 April 2021 at [15]; statement of defence dated 11 October 2021 at [15].
2 Statement of claim at [31]-[33]; statement of defence at [31]-[33].

[7]In addition to the $70,000, Mr Lipsham paid Ms Helmbright approximately

$2.8 million on 2 December 2019.

[8] Ms Helmbright engaged with real estate agents and lawyers on behalf of Mr Lipsham regarding properties at:

(a)Aucks Road, Russell; and

(b)Opito Bay Road, Opua.

[9]In the end, these properties were not purchased.

[10] On or about 17 January 2020, Ms Helmbright purchased, in her own name, a property at Pungaere Road, Waipapa for $1,675,000.

[11] On 26 March 2020, Ms Helmbright purchased, in her own name, a property at Horeke Road, Okaihau for $660,000.

[12]As noted, by May 2020 their relationship had ended.

Issues

[13]Mr Lipsham’s case is that Ms Helmbright represented to him that the

$2.8 million…

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 Lipsham v Helmbright

Details

AGLC: Lipsham v Helmbright [2022] NZHC 1350
Case: [2022] NZHC 1350
Decision Date: 9 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Lipsham v Helmbright involved a dispute between Mark Lipsham and Kim Helmbright over a $2.8 million payment made by Mr Lipsham to Ms Helmbright. Mr Lipsham alleged that the payment was for Ms Helmbright to purchase one or more properties on his behalf, while Ms Helmbright contended that the payment was for services under a "Freelancing Agreement." The court was required to decide whether the payment was for property purchases or for services under the agreement. The case also involved an application for particular discovery of documents relating to the payment, properties, and services.

The court found that there were compelling grounds for believing that Ms Helmbright would have received a receipt with a transaction ID from Documatica when she downloaded and paid for the Freelancing Agreement. The court ordered Ms Helmbright to provide discovery of these documents, and any record of the download. The court also found that the tax-related documents and communications were not privileged or confidential and ordered their disclosure. Regarding the properties, the court found that the sale and purchase agreements and communications with third parties were not privileged or confidential and ordered their disclosure. The court ordered the discovery of bank statements for the period 1 October 2019 to 31 May 2020, with restrictions on inspection to protect Ms Helmbright's privacy in details of other, unrelated transactions.

The court ordered Ms Helmbright to undertake a search for all the documents in the categories listed in the schedule to this judgment, retrieve documents from her solicitors and former solicitors, and swear a further affidavit listing all the documents she has found and retrieved. The court also ordered that the documents in Category 8, being her bank statements, are not to be inspected by anyone other than Mr Lipsham's solicitor and counsel in this proceeding. The court invited submissions on costs in relation to this application.

Orders