Legal Research
Cases
RHH Ltd v Anderson

RHH Ltd v Anderson

Case [2018] NZHC 2032 9 August 2018

Discovery & Disclosure

Relevance

Proportionality

Reasonable Search

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2017-404-2066

[2018] NZHC 2032

BETWEEN
RHH LIMITED

First Plaintiff

JOSEF CHRISTOPHER ROBERTS
Second Plaintiff

AND

SANDRINE ANDERSON
First Defendant

HELICE PROPERTIES LIMITED

Second Defendant

Hearing: 9 August 2018

Appearances:

K Davenport QC and P Devereux for the Plaintiffs L Taylor QC and E Watt for the Defendants

Judgment:

9 August 2018

ORAL JUDGMENT (No.2) OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE R M BELL

Plaintiffs’ application for further discovery

Solicitors:
Corporate Counsel (P Devereux), Parnell, Auckland, for the Plaintiffs
Grove Darlow & Partners (TJG Allan/SF Powrie), Auckland, for the Defendants Haigh Lyon (B Molloy) Auckland, for Ms Miriam Roberts

Copy for:
Kate Davenport QC Auckland, for the Plaintiffs Les Taylor QC, Wellington, for the Defendants
Robert Hollyman, Auckland, for Ms Miriam Roberts, non-party

RHH LIMITED v SANDRINE ANDERSON [2018] NZHC 2032 [9 August 2018]

[1] The plaintiffs apply for further discovery under r 8.19 and ancillary orders against the first and second defendants. The proceeding is about a property at 9 Springcombe Road, St Heliers, Auckland. In 2003 the property belonged to the Sandrine Trust, a trust associated with the first defendant, a practising lawyer. Mr Roberts, the second plaintiff, was a friend and client of Ms Anderson, as was Mr Roberts’ wife. RHH Ltd is a company associated with Mr Roberts. Helice Properties Ltd was established later. In September 2003, the trustees sold the Springcombe Road property to RHH Ltd for $950,000. Settlement took place in October 2003. RHH Ltd took title.

[2] Ms Anderson had been married to as Mr Grayson Wood. There had been a pre-nuptial agreement. In 2002 they separated. In 2003 Mr Wood brought a proceeding in the Family Court under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. In that proceeding Ms Anderson contended that Mr Wood had no interest or any claim to an interest in the Springcombe Road property, relying on its status as property held in a trust and on a pre-nuptial agreement.

[3] After RHH Ltd took title in 2003, there were discussions. Ms Anderson contends that an oral agreement was made under which she was to buy the property back. A price of $1.1 million was agreed. Ms Anderson was given time to buy the property. Helice Properties Ltd was incorporated with Mr Roberts the sole director and shareholder. Helice Properties Ltd was the corporate trustee of the Willow Trust which was established under a deed of 2 November 2003. The beneficiaries of the trust included Mr Roberts, his wife Miriam, Ms Anderson and others. Ms Anderson was the protector under the trust deed. That gave her powers to add or remove trustees. The role of protector did not, however, give her any power to make distributions. That lay with the trustees. Any resettlement could be made only with the consent of protector. In November 2003 the Springcombe Road property was transferred to Helice Properties Ltd as trustee of the Willow Trust.

[4] Ms Anderson’s case…

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 RHH Ltd v Anderson

Details

AGLC: RHH Ltd v Anderson [2018] NZHC 2032
Case: [2018] NZHC 2032
Decision Date: 9 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of RHH Ltd v Anderson is a property dispute involving multiple parties and complex transactions. The plaintiffs, RHH Ltd and Josef Christopher Roberts, are seeking further discovery of documents and ancillary orders from the defendants, Sandrine Anderson and Helice Properties Limited. The property in question is located at 9 Springcombe Road, St Heliers, Auckland, which was sold by the Sandrine Trust to RHH Ltd in 2003. The defendants contend that an oral agreement was made for Ms Anderson to buy back the property at a later date. The plaintiffs argue that Ms Anderson has benefited from the sale of the property and seek an accounting of the profits.

The legal issues in this case revolve around the discovery of documents that may be relevant to the dispute. The plaintiffs seek specific classes of documents from the defendants, including statements of position, financial statements, company records, and Family Court pleadings. The court must determine whether these documents are relevant, whether there are grounds for belief that the documents exist, whether the discovery is proportionate, and whether an order for discovery is appropriate under the High Court Rules.

The court found that the plaintiffs had met their onus of showing that there were grounds for belief that the defendants had not discovered certain relevant documents. The court ordered the defendants to provide further discovery of the financial statements held by Virginia Gomes and Associates Limited, as well as any further affidavits in the Family Court proceeding between Ms Anderson and Mr Wood. The court did not require the defendants to disclose certain other documents, such as statements of position and correspondence with the ASB Bank, as they were found to be irrelevant or peripheral to the issues in this case.

In summary, the court ordered the defendants to provide further discovery of specific classes of documents and to depose as to the existence of any relevant documents in their possession or control. The defendants were also required to depose as to whether they had made back-ups when changing their email server. The court emphasised that the defendants should conduct a reasonable search for the relevant documents, and that the plaintiffs were not required to prove the existence of the documents on the balance of probabilities. The defendants were given a deadline to file and serve the further affidavit of documents, and the plaintiffs were given the opportunity to object to any redactions of the Family Court pleadings.

Orders