Murren v Schaeffer

Case [2018] NZHC 2320


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHAKATŪ ROHE

CIV-2015-442-028

[2018] NZHC 2320

BETWEEN

JAMES JOSEPH MURREN as trustee of the JAMES J. MURREN SPENDTHRIFT

TRUST and DANIEL LEE
Plaintiffs/Respondent

AND

GLENN SCHAEFFER

Defendant/Applicant

Hearing: 3 September 2018

Counsel:

A J Horne and A E Simkiss for Plaintiffs/Respondent A R Shaw and C W Martin for Applicant/Defendant

Judgment:

4 September 2018


JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J


Introduction

[1]    The plaintiffs, Mr Murren and Mr Lee, and the defendant, Mr Schaeffer, are all American citizens. They have a mutual background in the casino industry in the United States. They were once friends.

[2]    In 2000, Mr Schaeffer acquired an interest in a company now known as Woollaston Estates Holdings Ltd which owned and operated a vineyard and winery at Upper Moutere, Nelson.

[3]    In 2002, Mr Schaeffer approached Mr Murren and Mr Lee about investing in the vineyard and winery enterprise. The parties entered into an agreement and the plaintiffs contributed capital to the enterprise.

MURREN & ANOR v SCHAEFFER [2018] NZHC 2320 [4 September 2018]

[4]    In 2006, a further agreement was entered into and subsequent further capital contributions were made.   It is alleged that Mr Murren paid US$1,600,813.92 to   Mr Schaeffer between 2002 and 2008 and that Mr Lee paid US$700,406.96 during the same period.

The proceeding

[5]    On 16 June 2015, the plaintiffs filed a statement of claim against the defendant alleging:

(a)breaches of the Fair Trading Act 1986;

(b)negligent misstatement;

(c)deceit;

(d)fraudulent misrepresentation; and

(e)violation of the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

[6]    The pleadings were refined in  a  first  amended  statement  of  claim  dated 22 January 2018. However, the issues remained the same relating to Mr Schaeffer’s conduct in soliciting investment funds from Mr Murren and Mr Lee and the use to which the funds provided by Mr Murren and Mr Lee were put, together with the issue of whether he complied with promises allegedly made by him to the plaintiffs.

The mediation

[7]    The parties, along with their various legal advisors, attended a mediation in Auckland before Warren Sowerby on 10 August 2017.

[8]    It is alleged that Mr Lee made threats to Mr Schaeffer during the course of the mediation. There is a dispute as to exactly what was said. Mr Schaeffer’s recollection is that Mr Lee said if Mr Schaeffer did not give his money back, he would bury him in the desert like in the old days, would destroy his children’s lives, bankrupt his ex-wife and kill his three show dogs. Aspects of Mr Schaeffer’s recollection are

supported by affidavits of others, including an affidavit of Paul Donald Le Gros dated 4 April 2018.

[9]    Mr Lee’s recollection is that he said that if a dispute such as the present one had arisen between Las Vegas gaming executives in the “old days”, Mr Schaeffer might have ended up buried in the Nevada desert. He said that after saying this he also said that things were…

Continue reading Murren v Schaeffer

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Murren v Schaeffer [2018] NZHC 2320
Case
[2018] NZHC 2320
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Murren v Schaeffer involved a dispute between three American citizens with a background in the casino industry. The plaintiffs, Mr Murren and Mr Lee, had invested in a vineyard and winery enterprise owned by the defendant, Mr Schaeffer. The plaintiffs filed a statement of claim against Mr Schaeffer alleging breaches of the Fair Trading Act, negligent misstatement, deceit, fraudulent misrepresentation, and violation of the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The dispute centred on Mr Schaeffer's conduct in soliciting investment funds and the use to which the funds provided by Mr Murren and Mr Lee were put. The legal issues in this case included whether the threats made during a mediation were relevant to the trial issues, and whether the Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to strike out or permanently stay the proceedings.

The Court found that the alleged threats made during the mediation were not relevant to the real controversy in the substantive proceedings. The Court emphasised that the primary sanction for serious criminal wrongdoing is a prosecution, and the appropriate body to investigate such complaints is the police. The Court also noted that the alleged threats did not directly impact the trial issues or the real controversy in the proceedings. The Court further found that there was no basis for depriving the plaintiffs of their counsel, as their evidence was unlikely to add anything significant to what was already before the Court. The Court also directed that no subpoenas be issued against the plaintiffs' counsel, as it could be seen as a tactic to frustrate the plaintiffs' ability to properly conduct the proceedings.

The Court dismissed the application to strike out or permanently stay the substantive proceedings and granted leave to file the application dated 29 August 2018. The Court reserved the costs issue to be dealt with by the trial Judge along with the other costs issues at the conclusion of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.