Lobb v Ryan - [2025] NZCA 405

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA534/2024
[2025] NZCA 405

BETWEEN	STUART JAMES LOBB First Applicant WAG TRUSTEES (2020) LIMITED Second Applicant
AND	VERENA COLLEEN RYAN First Respondent LOCKHART TRUSTEE SERVICES NO.56 LIMITED Second Respondent DIGBY JOHN NOYCE Third Respondent

Court:	Whata and Collins JJ
Counsel:	R J Latton and G R Grant for First and Second Applicants W M Patterson and L W Dixon for First Respondent No appearance for Second Respondent H L Thompson for Third Respondent
Judgment (On the papers):	19 August 2025 at 11.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for extension of time to appeal is granted.
B We make no order as to costs.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Whata J)

The applicants, Mr Stuart Lobb and WAG Trustees (2020) Ltd (WAG Trustees), apply for an extension of time to appeal a decision of the High Court apportioning costs of a court-appointed receiver.[1] The application is opposed by the first respondent, Ms Verena Ryan. The third respondent, Mr Digby Noyce (the court‑appointed receiver), abides the decision of this Court.

Background

[1]Ryan v Lobb [2024] NZHC 1997 [judgment under appeal].

The present matter is another step in a relationship property dispute between Mr Lobb and Ms Ryan.[2] At the time of separation in 2016, the majority of the relationship property had been transferred into a family trust, the Lothbury Trust. The principal asset of value was the family home (the Property). In 2017 Ms Ryan gave notice to the trustees requiring resettlement of half the trust assets into a new trust, the Verena Ryan Family Trust (as provided for in cl 2.5(3) of the trust deed upon separation). Mr Lobb opposed this request.
[2]We adopt the summary of Gault J set out in the judgment under appeal.
In 2023, Hinton J directed the receiver to sell the Property, with 50 per cent of the proceeds (following the deduction of the costs of sale, receiver’s costs and other payments) to be paid to the Verena Ryan Family Trust.[3]
[3]Ryan v Lobb [2023] NZHC 689 [Hinton J judgment].
Following that judgment, Mr Lobb, his family members and other related entities sought to thwart the sale of the Property, including by lodging caveats and filing trespass notices. WAG Trustees, which had taken an assignment of the mortgage over the Property shortly after the receiver had been appointed, issued a defective Property Law Act 2007 (PLA) notice.[4] Judgments were issued in the High Court preventing further action by Mr Lobb and his family.[5] Edwards J discharged the WAG Trustees’ mortgage on 19 June 2023.[6] The Property eventually settled in December 2023.
[4]WAG Trustees (2020) Ltd is owned by Mr Lobb’s father, Mr Warwick Lobb. Mr Warwick Lobb and Mr Blair Lobb (Mr Lobb’s brother) are the directors of the company.
[5]See Ryan v Lobb [2023] NZHC 2452; Ryan v Lobb [2023] NZHC 3595; and Noyce v Pendrell Investments Ltd [2023] NZHC 3778.

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 Lobb v Ryan

Details

AGLC: Lobb v Ryan [2025] NZCA 405
Case: [2025] NZCA 405
Decision Date: 19 August 2025 at 11.00 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stuart Lobb and WAG Trustees (2020) Ltd (WAG Trustees) appeal against the High Court's decision to apportion the costs of a court-appointed receiver to Mr Lobb. The respondents, Verena Ryan and the court-appointed receiver, opposed the extension of time for the appeal, while the second respondent did not appear. The Court of Appeal, consisting of Whata and Collins JJ, was tasked with deciding whether to grant an extension of time for the appeal and, if so, whether to award costs.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether to grant an extension of time for the applicants to appeal the High Court's decision. This decision hinged on whether the applicants had a sufficient justification for the late filing of their appeal, considering the principles outlined in Almond v Read. The applicants argued that the delay was due to counsel error and that there was no prejudice to the respondents. They also submitted that the appeal had merit, as it challenged the High Court's reliance on previous judgments. The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the delay was substantial and that the proposed appeal was an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal considered the principles from Almond v Read, which outline the factors to be considered when deciding whether to grant an extension of time. These factors include the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the conduct of the parties, any prejudice to the respondents, and the significance of the issues raised by the proposed appeal. The Court found that the delay was short, the reason for the delay was due to counsel error, there was no real prejudice to the respondents, and the appeal was not obviously meritless. Therefore, the Court concluded that an extension of time was justified.

The Court of Appeal granted the application for an extension of time to appeal but made no order as to costs. The Court held that the extension was an indulgence to the applicants, but the opposition to the extension was not reasonable. The Court found that more heed should have been paid to the suggestion of Cooke J. The Court ultimately granted the extension of time, allowing the applicants to proceed with their appeal despite the late filing.

Orders