MacDonald v Tower Insurance Ltd

[2014] NZHC 2876

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

CIV-2009-412-713 [2014] NZHC 2876

BETWEEN  DEAN ROBERT LAWRENCE Plaintiff

ANDGLYNBROOK 2001 LIMITED First Defendant

CRAIGADEAN DAIRY FARM LIMITED

Second Defendant

CRAIG WILLIAM LAWRENCE Third Defendant

ALFRED NORMAN WILLIAM LAWRENCE

Fourth Defendant

…/cont

Hearing:	12-16, 19-23 May and 26-27 June 2014
Counsel:	H McIntosh and H Macfarlane for the Plaintiff T J Shiels QC and D R Tobin for the Defendants
Judgment:	19 November 2014

JUDGMENT OF BROWN J

This judgment was delivered by me on 19 November 2014 at 3 pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:      Van Aaart Sycamore Lawyers Ltd, Dunedin

Downie Stewart, Dunedin

Counsel:       T J Shiels QC, Dunedin

D R Tobin, Dunedin

LAWRENCE v GLYNBROOK 2001 LTD [2014] NZHC 2876 [19 November 2014]

BEVERLY DIANE LAWRENCE Fifth Defendant

ALFRED NORMAN WILLIAM LAWRENCE AND BEVERLY DIANE LAWRENCE

Sixth Defendants

MARBLE HILL DAIRIES LIMITED Seventh Defendant

CONTENTS

Introduction .................................................................................................................................. [1] Matters agreed.............................................................................................................................. [7]

Relevant facts.............................................................................................................................. [10] Clydevale Farm .............................................................................................................................[11] The Partnership............................................................................................................................ [14] The August 2001 understanding ................................................................................................... [32] The October 2001 Agreement ....................................................................................................... [34] The Deed of Family Arrangement ................................................................................................ [49] The sale of Edendale Farm .......................................................................................................... [58] Dean’s departure from Edendale Farm. ....................................................................................... [66] The winding up of Craigadean – the survival of Glynbrook ........................................................ [72] The sale of Clydevale Farm to Marble Hill.................................................................................. [73] Dean’s claim – assignment by the Official Assignee .................................................................... [77]

The causes of action ................................................................................................................... [81] The Partnership claim .................................................................................................................. [82] The Glynbrook share claim .......................................................................................................... [84] The Craigadean s 174 claim ........................................................................................................ [86]

Agreed issues............................................................................................................................... [87] The Partnership Claim: the fourth cause of action ................................................................. [88]

Issue 2.1: On what date was the Partnership between Dean and Craig, Alfred and

Beverly dissolved? ...................................................................................................................... [89]

Issue 2.2: If the partnership dissolved on 31 January 2001, could the Partners subsequently agree that the Partnership would continue? If so, did they so agree,

and until when did it continue?................................................................................................. [89]

Did the partners make an agreement subsequent to 31 January 2001 purporting to

continue the Partnership? ............................................................................................................ [93]

Was the agreement effective in law to cause the Partnership to continue? ................................ [102] What is the effect of the agreement?........................................................................................... [108] Conclusions on Issues 2.1 and 2.2 ..............................................................................................[110]

Issue 2.3: Was Dean’s surrender of all his Partnership interest for a 12.5 per cent

shareholding in Glynbrook by the October Agreement in consideration for the transfer

of all Partnership assets to Glynbrook? .................................................................................. [111] The October Agreement...............................................................................................................[114] Were all the Partnership assets to be transferred to Glynbrook? .............................................. [120]

Issue 2.4: Was the October Agreement varied by a subsequent agreement? ...................... [130]

Issue 2.5: If the October Agreement was subsequently varied [what was the result

of that variation]?..................................................................................................................... [148] Issue 2.6: Are the defendants estopped from denying paragraph 2.4 and 2.5(d) above? ... [149]

Issue 2.7: What fiduciary duties were owed by Craig, Alfred and Beverly and/or the

[Lawrence (No 2)] Partnership and were such duties breached by

(a)      not allocating to Dean either:

–       his share of…