Roebuck v Liddle Builders & Construction Limited

[2021] NZHC 2591

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CIV-2021-441-70

[2021] NZHC 2591

BETWEEN

JASON GREGORY ROEBUCK and VICTORIA ANN ROEBUCK
First Applicants

JASON GREGORY ROEBUCK, VICTORIA ANN ROEBUCK and
PETER JOHN ROEBUCK as TRUSTEES OF THE TAHI TRUST

Second Applicants

AND

LIDDLE BUILDERS & CONSTRUCTION LIMITED

Respondent

Teleconference:	29 September 2021
Counsel:	J L Bates for Applicants N Gray for Respondent
Judgment:	29 September 2021

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

The application

[1]                  On 28 September 2021, the High Court at Wellington received the following documents:

(a)interlocutory application without notice seeking ancillary orders in respect a prospective freezing order;

(b)memorandum of counsel for the applicants in support of an application without notice dated 24 September 2021;

ROEBUCK & ORS v LIDDLE BUILDERS & CONSTRUCTION LIMITED [2021] NZHC 2591 [29 September 2021]

(c)undertaking as to damages dated 24 September 2021;

(d)affidavit of Jason Gregory Roebuck dated 23 September 2021;

(e)bundle of documents attached to the affidavit of Jason Gregory Roebuck; and

(f)affidavit of Trevor William Kitchin dated 24 September 2021.

[2]                  Although the application for an ancillary order was made without notice, a copy was served on the respondent’s solicitor, Mr Gray.

[3]                  As the applicant submitted that the matter was urgent, I allocated an immediate teleconference which was held at 3pm this afternoon, Wednesday 29 September 2021. Mr Gray was able to participate in that teleconference. He indicated that he had only just read the documents and had not been able to seek instructions.

Developments

[4]                  During the course of the teleconference, an issue arose as to whether or not the respondent would be prepared to provide a copy of the balance sheet for the respondent as it existed prior to the transactions which saw the debts of the respondent paid and the business and its assets transferred to a company called Havelock North Construction Limited which appears to be a new entity set up by R J Liddle, a director of the respondent.

[5]                  Mr Gray indicated that he would appreciate an opportunity to obtain instructions from the respondent as to whether or not a copy of balance sheet sought would be made available voluntarily.

[6]                  It appears to me that if such a document is made available voluntarily, that will meet a large part of what is sought in the interim application leaving only outstanding the order sought in respect of an affidavit identifying the persons or entities to whom the proceeds of sale of a property at 17 Taruna Place, Havelock North, were applied to.

[7]                  Accordingly, I have adjourned this interim application until 5pm tomorrow, 30 September 2021, to allow Mr Gray to obtain instructions and file the necessary document.

[8]                  If, having received such documents as may be provided, Mr Bates does not wish to proceed with the interim application, he is to advise the Court promptly.

[9]                  If either the document referred to is not provided or the applicants wish an order from the Court to be made in respect of the interim application, I will issue a prompt decision and endeavour to have it available to the parties on 1 October 2021. Such a decision will be interim with leave reserved to either party to apply to have the matter set down for a defended hearing.

Churchman J

Solicitors:

Brown & Bates Lawyers, Napier for Applicants Sainsbury Logan & Williams, Napier for Respondent