Ryan v Lobb - [2024] NZHC 1237

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2019-404-1591

[2024] NZHC 1237

BETWEEN
VERENA COLLEEN RYAN

Plaintiff

AND

STUART JAMES LOBB

Defendant

CIV-2023-404-2794

BETWEEN

DIGBY JOHN NOYCE
Applicant

AND

PENDRELL INVESTMENTS LIMITED

First Respondent

AND

REGISTRAR-GENERAL OF LAND

Second Respondent

AND

STUART JAMES LOBB

Third Respondent

AND

LOTHBURY MANAGEMENT LIMITED

Fourth Respondent

Continued overleaf

Hearing: On the papers at Auckland

Judgment:

17 May 2024

JUDGMENT OF POWELL J

[Costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on 17 May 2024 at 4.00 pm pursuant to
r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………..
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

VERENA COLLEEN RYAN v STUART JAMES LOBB [2024] NZHC 1237 [17 May 2024]

WAG TRUSTEES (2020) LIMITED
Fifth Respondent

MATTSON PARTNERSHIP
Sixth Respondent

WARWICK LOBB
Seventh Respondent

AND

STUART JAMES LOBB
First Defendant

LOCKHART TRUSTEE SERVICES NO.56 LIMITED
Second Defendant

WAG TRUSTEES (2020) LIMITED
Third Defendant

[1] This judgment addresses costs issues arising out of the following three judgments:

(a)Ryan v Lobb (“the WAG stay judgment”).1 Issued on CIV-2019-404- 1591 (“the 1591 proceedings”), where I dismissed an application by the third defendant, WAG Trustees (2020) Limited (“WAG”), for a stay of execution of part of a judgment of Edwards J issued on 19 June 2023,2 which had concluded a mortgage purporting to be held by WAG did not secure any debt or the performance of any obligation.3

(b)Ryan v Lobb (No.2) (“the Stuart Lobb contempt judgment”)4 issued on the 1591 proceedings in which I determined, upon the application of the second plaintiff, the court-appointed receiver, Digby Noyce (“the receiver”) that the first defendant, Stuart Lobb, had acted in contempt of court in his efforts to prevent the sale of a property located at 23 Orakei Road, Remuera (“the Orakei Road property”).

(c)Noyce v Pendrell Investments Limited (“the caveat removal judgment”)5 issued on the 1591 proceedings and CIV-2023-404-2794 (“the 2794 proceedings”) in which I ordered the removal of six caveats current or pending on the title of the Orakei Road property.

[2]I now deal with the costs issues arising from each judgment in turn.

The WAG stay judgment

[3] In ordering the WAG stay application be dismissed, I determined that increased costs (on a 2B basis uplifted by 20 per cent) were appropriately paid by WAG to the receiver.6

1      Ryan v Lobb [2023] NZHC 2452 [The WAG stay judgment].
2      Ryan v Lobb [2023] NZHC 1518.
3 At [94].
4      Ryan v Lobb (No.2) [2023] NZHC 3595 [The Stuart Lobb contempt judgment].
5      Noyce v Pendrell Investments Ltd [2023] NZHC 3778 [The caveat removal judgment].
6 The WAG stay judgment, above n 1, at [16].

[4] In accordance with my timetabled directions the receiver has sought costs in the sum of $8,030.40 being costs of $6,692 together with the 20 per cent uplift. The receiver also seeks disbursements of $110, resulting in a total of $8,140.40 sought against WAG.

[5] No submissions on the quantum of the costs sought by the receiver…

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 [2024] NZHC 1237
Case: [2024] NZHC 1237
Decision Date: 17 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Judge Powell addressed the costs issues arising from three judgments in Ryan v Lobb. The first judgment involved dismissing an application by WAG Trustees (2020) Limited for a stay of execution of a judgment, where the court ordered WAG to pay costs of $8,030.40 to the receiver, inclusive of a 20% uplift, plus $110 in disbursements. The second judgment held Stuart Lobb in contempt for actions undermining the sale of a property, leading to a costs order of $30,107.50 for the receiver, plus $572.45 in disbursements. The third judgment, concerning the removal of caveats on the property, resulted in an order that Stuart Lobb, Warwick Lobb, Pendrell Investments Limited, Lothbury Management Limited, and WAG Trustees (2020) Limited were jointly and severally liable to pay $49,195 in costs to the receiver.

The court carefully examined the receiver's calculations and time records, finding them reasonable and appropriate given the circumstances. Stuart Lobb's actions in filing multiple caveats without merit, despite having been previously addressed, were deemed abusive and contributed to the award of higher costs. Similarly, Warwick Lobb's involvement in filing additional caveats, despite a lack of merit, warranted the imposition of joint and several liability for the costs incurred. The coordinated effort by the Lobb family and their controlled entities to obstruct the sale of the property further justified the extensive costs awarded. Overall, the urgency and complexity of the proceedings supported the amounts claimed by the receiver.

Orders