Ruocco v Ruocco - [2019] NZHC 2758

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2016-485-1004

[2019] NZHC 2758

UNDER the Trustee Act 1956

IN THE MATTER

of proceedings under pt 18 of the High Court Rules and the LS and L Ruocco Family Trust

BETWEEN

LUIGI GERARD RUOCCO

Plaintiff

AND

LUISA RUOCCO,

ANTONELLA THERESE ASPELL, JOHN PAUL RUOCCO and

JOHN CLAYTON MEO

Defendants

Hearing: 9 October 2019

Appearances:

T Castle for plaintiff

C Matsis for defendant

Judgment:

29 October 2019

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE JOHNSTON

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction  1
The first application — Mr Castle’s position  7
The second application — particulars  26
The third application — interrogatories  47
The fourth application — the use of trust resources  78
Conclusion  90
Costs  92

RUOCCO v RUOCCO, [2019] NZHC 2758 [29 October 2019]

Introduction

[1] The Ruoccos are one of several families — many, like the Ruoccos, of southern Italian extraction — that have been closely involved in Wellington’s commercial fishing industry for many years. It is characteristic of these families that they are very close, living and working together — il sangue non è acqua.

[2] Regrettably, a dispute has developed within the Ruocco family, which has given rise to this litigation. The plaintiff, Luigi Ruocco (Luigi), is suing the trustees of the Ruocco Family Trust. The trustees are Luigi’s mother, Luisa Ruocco (Mrs Ruocco), two of his siblings, Antonella Aspell (Antonella) and John Ruocco (John), and a non-family trustee, Mr John Meo (Mr Meo), who is a partner in Gault Mitchell Law, the defendant trustees’ solicitors.

[3] Luigi’s essential allegation is that the settlement of the trust on 18 October 2002, the transfer to the trust of the family’s fishing business including such assets as plant and quota, and the trustee’s subsequent administration of the trust, have disadvantaged him vis-à-vis other family members. In his statement of claim dated 21 December 2016, he pleads six causes of action. For reasons that will become clear the remedies sought in relation to each of these causes of action are not readily apparent, but in an affidavit, also dated 21 December 2016, Luigi says that he has a claim in respect of half of the capital value of the trust.

[4] Before the Court for determination are four interlocutory disputes that I propose to describe in what appears to me to be the most helpful way, although my description does not correspond in all respects with the formal documentation:

(a)An application by the defendant trustees for an order prohibiting Mr Castle, who has been instructed by Luigi’s solicitors, from appearing as counsel for him in this proceeding.

(b)An application by the defendant trustees for an order requiring Luigi to particularise aspects of his statement of claim.

(c)An application by the defendant trustees for an order requiring Luigi to answer interrogatories.

(d)An application by Luigi for an order prohibiting the defendant trustees from expending trust resources in the defence of this proceeding.

[5]All four applications are opposed.

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 Ruocco v Ruocco

Details

AGLC: Ruocco v Ruocco [2019] NZHC 2758
Case: [2019] NZHC 2758
Decision Date: 29 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Ruocco v Ruocco, Luigi Ruocco (Luigi) sued the trustees of the Ruocco Family Trust, including his mother, siblings, and a non-family trustee, over the trust's settlement and administration. The High Court of New Zealand considered four interlocutory disputes: disqualification of Luigi's counsel, particularisation of Luigi's claims, interrogatories, and the use of trust resources for defence.

The Court dismissed the application to disqualify Luigi's counsel, Mr Castle, based on past involvement with the family. It found Mr Castle's previous engagements with the family business unrelated to the internal trust matters at issue. The Court ordered Luigi to provide more detailed particulars for specific allegations in his statement of claim, while rejecting requests that went beyond fair notice requirements. Regarding interrogatories, the Court required Luigi to answer those relevant to the case but declined others that were either redundant or oppressive. Lastly, the Court did not order the defendant trustees to cease using trust funds for defence, finding insufficient evidence of their obdurate conduct to warrant such a measure.

The Court ordered Luigi to amend his statement of claim to specify relief for each cause of action, detail the quantum of his claim, and provide further particulars for specific allegations. It also directed Luigi to answer certain interrogatories but not others deemed irrelevant or oppressive. Costs were reserved for potential future determination.

Orders