Perrot-Hunt v Johnston - [2017] NZHC 689

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2015-404-2506 [2017] NZHC 689

IN THE MATTER OF the Hunt Family Trust

BETWEEN

MATTHEW NEIL PERROT-HUNT First Plaintiff

HUNT FT LIMITED
and

DEBRA CECILIA HOLTOM Second Plaintiffs

AND

EDWARD ERROL JOHNSTON First Defendant

ED JOHNSTON & CO TRUSTEES LIMITED

Second Defendant

RONALD BRUCE JOHNSON JOHN KAHUKIWA and LAWRENCE PONNIAH trading as CORBAN REVELL

Third Defendants

RONALD BRUCE JOHNSON Fourth Defendant

ROSS JAMS FARRON and

JAMES ROBERT ARTHUR NASH Fifth Defendants

ROSS JAMES FARRON Sixth Defendant

Hearing: 5 April 2017

Counsel:

R S Pidgeon and G S C K Sidnam for the Plaintiffs
P J Napier for the Fourth Defendant
No appearances for other Defendants

Judgment:

11 April 2017

PERROT-HUNT v JOHNSTON [2017] NZHC 689 [11 April 2017]

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE R M BELL

This judgment was delivered by me on 11 April 2017 at 11:00am
pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

………………………………………………….
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Pidgeon Law (Joanna Pidgeon), Auckland, for Plaintiffs
Keegan Alexander (P Napier), Auckland, for Defendants

Copy for:
R S Pidgeon, Barrister, Mairangi Bay, Auckland, for Plaintiffs

[1] The fourth defendant, Ronald Bruce Johnson, applies for summary judgment and to strike out the claim against him. He is also one of the third defendants. This decision concerns his alleged liability as fourth defendant.

[2] Mr Johnson is a lawyer practising in West Auckland. He was for a period a salaried partner in the firm Corban Revell, the third defendants. In 2011 he left that firm and established his own practice, Central Park Legal Limited, an incorporated law firm. As fourth defendant he is sued as principal of Central Park Legal Limited. Corban Revell, as third defendants, have separate representation. The claims against him are for breaches of professional duty. The basis for his applications is that any alleged wrongdoing by him occurred only why he was a partner of Corban Revell, but not after he left that firm and established his own practice.

Parties

[3] The first plaintiff is the administrator of the estate of the late Mrs Vao Hunt, who died on 31 May 2016. The second plaintiffs are the current trustees of the Hunt Family Trust. The original trustees were Mrs Hunt, her daughter Debra Holtom, and Edward Johnston & Co Trustees Limited.

[4] Mr Ed Johnston, the first defendant, is a former lawyer who practised on his own account in West Auckland. He is now in disgrace. He was struck off the rolls as a lawyer and was adjudicated bankrupt. Edward Johnston & Co Trustees Limited, the second defendant, is a corporate trustee associated with Mr Ed Johnston’s former practice.

[5] The third defendants are the partners of the firm Corban Revell at the times relevant to this proceeding.

[6] Mr R Farron and Mr R Nash were businessmen who engaged in property development and investment. They have been adjudicated bankrupt.

What the case is about

[7] In 2009 Mrs Hunt was a widow living in a freehold family home…

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 Perrot-Hunt v Johnston

Details

AGLC: Perrot-Hunt v Johnston [2017] NZHC 689
Case: [2017] NZHC 689
Decision Date: 11 April 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand considered an application for summary judgment and a strike-out application brought by Ronald Bruce Johnson in the matter of the Hunt Family Trust. The plaintiffs, who are the current trustees of the trust and the administrator of the late Mrs Vao Hunt's estate, have brought a claim against several defendants, including Mr Johnson, for breaches of professional duty and conspiracy by unlawful means. Mr Johnson's application for summary judgment and to strike out the claims against him as the principal of Central Park Legal Limited, his own law firm, was dismissed by the court. The court held that while Mr Johnson argued that any alleged wrongdoing occurred only while he was a partner of Corban Revell, and not after he established his own practice, this distinction was irrelevant for the purposes of the summary judgment application. The court also found that the plaintiffs' claims against Mr Johnson as the principal of Central Park Legal Limited could not succeed as there was no evidence of any wrongdoing by Mr Johnson after he left Corban Revell. The court further held that the plaintiffs' conspiracy claim did not extend to actions taken by Mr Johnson after he left Corban Revell. Consequently, the court dismissed the summary judgment application and struck out the claims against Mr Johnson as the principal of Central Park Legal Limited. The plaintiffs were directed to file and serve an amended statement of claim excluding any claim against Mr Johnson in that capacity. The fourth defendant was awarded costs on the application.

The court's decision underscores the importance of ensuring that all causes of action are considered when a defendant applies for summary judgment. The court also highlighted the need for pleadings to be clear and specific about the capacity in which a defendant is being sued, as well as the timing of any alleged wrongdoing. The decision serves as a reminder to parties and their lawyers to carefully consider the scope and timing of their claims when preparing pleadings, and to be prepared to amend those pleadings if necessary in light of the evidence.

Orders