Simpson v Hubbard - [2012] NZHC 3020

ORDERS FOR SUPPRESSION UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT IN TERMS OF PARAGRAPHS [9] AND [10] OF THIS JUDGMENT.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TIMARU REGISTRY

CIV-2012-476-000144 [2012] NZHC 3020

IN THE MATTER OF THE CORPORATIONS (INVESTIGATION & MANAGEMENT) ACT 1989

AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BROUGHT BY RICHARD GRANT SIMPSON, TREVOR FRANCIS THORNTON AND GRAEME CARSON MCGLINN AS STATUTORY MANAGERS OF AORANGI
SECURITIES LIMITED (IN STATUTORY MANAGMENT) (A DULY INCORPORATED COMPANY)
Applicants

ANDMARGARET JANE HUBBARD (RELEASED FROM STATUTORY MANAGEMENT) AS EXECUTRIX AND TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE ALLAN JAMES HUBBARD
First Respondent

ANDMARGARET JANE HUBBARD Second Respondent

ANDMARGARET JANE HUBBARD (RELEASED FROM STATUTORY MANAGEMENT) AS EXECUTRIX AND TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE ALLAN JAMES HUBBARD
AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE TE TUA CHARITABLE TRUST (IN STATUTORY MANAGEMENT)
Third Respondent

ANDANDREW JAMES MORRIS AND EDGAR GEORGE BRADLEY TRUSTEES OF THE TEMPLE BAR TRUST (IN STATUTORY MANAGEMENT)
Fourth Respondent

SIMPSON V HUBBARD HC TIM CIV-2012-476-000144 [7 November 2012]

ANDFORRESTERS NOMINEE COMPANY LIMITED (IN STATUTORY MANAGEMENT) (A DULY INCORPORATED COMPANY)
Fifth Respondent

Hearing: 7 November 2012

Appearances: F B Barton, G A Cooper and A M Cunninghame for Applicants
Dr A S Butler and O C Gascoigne for First and Second Respondents
O G Paulsen for Third, Fourth and Fifth Respondents

Judgment: 7 November 2012

ORAL INTERIM JUDGMENT OF CHISHOLM J

[1] It was necessary to abort the hearing of this proceeding which was due to commence on 29 October 2012. The following matters now require determination:

(a) an application by Mrs Hubbard for costs on the statutory managers’

adjournment application;

(b) an application for wasted costs as a result of the trial being aborted;

(c) an application for an order allowing Mrs Hubbard to have recourse to the assets in dispute for her future costs arising from this litigation;

(d) suppression issues;

(e) issues as to admissibility of evidence; (f) timetable matters; and
(g) media applications.

Because it is not possible in the time available to resolve all those issues, this will be an interim decision. However, I am resolving as many issues as I can at this stage.

[2] This proceeding essentially involves a contest between Mrs Hubbard/the Hubbard Estate and the statutory managers about the ownership of numerous assets. While the value of those assets fluctuates, indications are that they are worth around
$60 million at the present time.

[3] According to the statutory managers these assets were transferred by Mr and Mrs Hubbard for the benefit of the investors and they are now under the control of the statutory managers and available for distribution to the investors. On the other hand, Mrs Hubbard, for herself and her husband’s estate, challenges whether the transfers were validly implemented.

[4] Originally a one week back-up fixture was allocated for 29 October 2012. It was a backup to another fixture involving the same statutory management. Because the other fixture could not proceed a firm fixture became available for this matter in September 2012.

[5]…

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 Simpson v Hubbard

Details

AGLC: Simpson v Hubbard [2012] NZHC 3020
Case: [2012] NZHC 3020
Decision Date: 7 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Simpson v Hubbard, the High Court of New Zealand addressed a range of issues pertaining to a complex statutory management involving numerous parties and assets worth approximately $60 million. The primary dispute involved whether certain assets were validly transferred for the benefit of investors under the control of the statutory managers, or whether the transfers were challenged by Mrs Hubbard on behalf of her husband's estate. The court was tasked with resolving various applications, including costs on the statutory managers' adjournment application, wasted costs due to the trial being aborted, and suppression issues.

The court found that while the statutory managers' oversight in identifying relevant documents warranted an adjournment, their conduct did not rise to the level of "flagrant" misconduct required for indemnity costs. Instead, the court ordered costs on a 3C scale plus a small uplift, totaling around $30,000, to be paid by the statutory managers. The court also granted a limited award of wasted costs of $7,500. Suppression orders were issued regarding certain financial information and references to Mrs Hubbard's personal financial situation. The court granted media applications to film and record the trial, subject to guidelines, with the exception of still photographs by Radio New Zealand.

Further issues, such as admissibility of evidence and timetable matters, were to be resolved through written synopses and a telephone conference. The court reserved costs for the interim hearing and directed the parties to address unresolved issues promptly to avoid further delays.

Orders