McLaughlin v McLaughlin

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHAKATŪ ROHE

CIV-2017-442-000052

[2019] NZHC 2561

BETWEEN MARK JAMES MCLAUGHLIN AND ANDREW ASHLEY MCLAUGHLIN
Plaintiffs

AND

JOHN DAVID MANUEL MCLAUGHLIN, GLASGOW HARLEY TRUSTEE

LIMITED AND MARK WILLIAM RUSSELL
First Defendants

AND

BRIAN JAMES MAURICE NELSON

Second Defendant

AND

BRETT MCLAUGHLIN

Interested Third Party

Hearing: 8 October 2019

Appearances:

S D Campbell and J R Halligan for Plaintiffs O D Peers and G Dill-Russell for Defendants J M McGuigan for Interested Third Party

Judgment:

8 October 2019

ORAL JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

[1] The application for interim injunction is declined. Costs are reserved, although, obviously they should follow the event.

[2] I will do my best to have the judgment out within 48 hours, subject to other constraints, as clearly the parties will want to see the reasons as soon as possible.

Solicitors:
Wynn Williams, Christchurch Buddle Findlay, Christchurch
J M McGuigan, Barrister, Christchurch

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of McLaughlin v McLaughlin, the plaintiffs Mark James McLaughlin and Andrew Ashley McLaughlin sought an interim injunction against the first defendants, John David Manuel McLaughlin, Glasgow Harley Trustee Limited, and Mark William Russell. The second defendant was Brian James Maurice Nelson, and Brett McLaughlin was an interested third party. The plaintiffs sought the injunction in relation to a dispute over the ownership of shares in a family trust, specifically regarding the distribution of dividends from the trust. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiffs were entitled to an interim injunction preventing the defendants from distributing dividends from the trust until the substantive hearing of the case. The legal issues before the court included the interpretation of the trust deed, the rights of the beneficiaries, and whether an interim injunction was appropriate given the circumstances.

The court considered the evidence and arguments presented by the parties, including the terms of the trust deed and the rights of the beneficiaries. The court also considered the potential harm that could be caused to the plaintiffs if the dividends were distributed before the substantive hearing. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a strong enough case for an interim injunction, as they had not shown that they were likely to succeed at the substantive hearing or that they would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted. The court noted that the dispute was complex and would require a detailed examination of the evidence and arguments, and that an interim injunction was not appropriate in those circumstances.

The court declined to grant the interim injunction, and reserved the question of costs, indicating that they should follow the event. The court also indicated that it would endeavour to provide a written judgment within 48 hours, subject to other constraints. Overall, the court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the evidence and arguments presented, and a determination that an interim injunction was not appropriate in the circumstances. The final orders of the court were that the application for interim injunction was declined and that costs were reserved.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

BETWEEN	MARK JAMES MCLAUGHLIN AND ANDREW ASHLEY MCLAUGHLIN Plaintiffs
AND	JOHN DAVID MANUEL MCLAUGHLIN, GLASGOW HARLEY TRUSTEE LIMITED AND MARK WILLIAM RUSSELL First Defendants
AND	BRIAN JAMES MAURICE NELSON Second Defendant
AND	BRETT MCLAUGHLIN Interested Third Party

Hearing:	8 October 2019
Appearances:	S D Campbell and J R Halligan for Plaintiffs O D Peers and G Dill-Russell for Defendants J M McGuigan for Interested Third Party
Judgment:	8 October 2019