Legal Research
Cases
Ryan v Lobb

Ryan v Lobb

Case [2021] NZHC 2219 27 August 2021

Discovery & Disclosure

Specific Performance

Contract Formation

Contribution

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Property Law

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-2019-404-001591

[2021] NZHC 2219

BETWEEN
VERENA COLLEEN RYAN

Plaintiff

AND

STUART JAMES LOBB

First Defendant

AND

LOCKHART TRUSTEE SERVICES NO.56 LIMITED

Second Defendant

AND

PUBLIC TRUST

Non-Party

Hearing: 20 July 2021

Counsel:

W M Patterson for Plaintiff

P A Fuscic for First Defendant

Judgment:

27 August 2021

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE PAULSEN

This judgment was delivered by me on 27 August 2021 at 2.00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

RYAN v LOBB [2021] NZHC 2219 [27 August 2021]

[1] In this proceeding, the plaintiff (Ms Ryan) asks the Court to make a declaration as to the meaning of a resettlement clause in a trust deed establishing the Lothbury Trust (the Trust). At the time the proceeding was commenced the defendants were, along with Ms Ryan, the trustees of the Trust.

[2] This judgment concerns an application by the first defendant (Mr Lobb) for orders requiring Ms Ryan and the second defendant, Lockhart Trustee Services No.56 Ltd (Lockhart) to provide tailored or particular discovery and that Public Trust provide particular non-party discovery.

[3] The application is opposed by Ms Ryan, principally on the grounds the categories of documents listed in the application are not relevant to the issue in the proceeding and the discovery sought is not proportionate. Lockhart and Public Trust will abide the Court’s decision.

Facts

[4] Mr Lobb and Ms Ryan were married on 8 January 2000 and have two children. They separated in about October 2016. The marriage has been dissolved.

[5] They settled the Trust on 17 June 2005. Mr Lobb and Ms Ryan, together with Public Trust, were the first trustees. Mr Lobb and Ms Ryan were also appointed protectors of the Trust with the power, if acting jointly and unanimously, to appoint and remove trustees. The discretionary beneficiaries of the Trust are Mr Lobb, Ms Ryan and their children. The children are the final beneficiaries of the Trust.

[6] The assets of the Trust consist of the former family home at 23 Orakei Road, Remuera, antique furniture, jewellery and watches. Mr Lobb and Ms Ryan jointly sold these items to the trustees by deeds of sale, with the debts owed to them as vendors acknowledged by deeds of acknowledgement of debt. Renovations were undertaken to the Orakei Road property in around 2005-2006 and the cost of the work documented as loans by Mr Lobb and Ms Ryan to the Trust. The debts created in favour of Ms Ryan and Mr Lobb have been forgiven. These transactions were recorded in the financial statements of the Trust. The financial statements to 31 March 2012, for instance,

record that Ms Ryan and Mr Lobb were each owed $755,216.12 and that the debt was gifted. The total liabilities were nil.

[7]This proceeding concerns cl 2.5 of the Trust Deed which relevantly provides:

2.5 Resettlement of Trust

…

(3) If the Settlors…

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 Ryan v Lobb

Details

AGLC: Ryan v Lobb [2021] NZHC 2219
Case: [2021] NZHC 2219
Decision Date: 27 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand was called upon to decide whether tailored or particular discovery should be ordered in a case concerning the interpretation of a resettlement clause in a trust deed. The plaintiff, Verena Colleen Ryan, sought a declaration as to the meaning of the resettlement clause in the Lothbury Trust deed, while the first defendant, Stuart James Lobb, applied for tailored or particular discovery from Ryan and Lockhart Trustee Services No.56 Limited. The application was opposed by Ryan, on the grounds that the categories of documents listed in the application were not relevant to the issue in the proceeding and that the discovery sought was not proportionate. The Court was required to decide whether the tailored discovery sought by Lobb was relevant and proportionate to the issue in the case. The Court held that the tailored discovery sought by Lobb was not relevant or proportionate to the issue in the case, and that the appropriate course was to require standard discovery from all parties involved. The Court also held that Public Trust should provide particular discovery, and that Lobb should bear the costs of Public Trust's compliance with the discovery order.

Orders