Skelton v Nair - [2015] NZHC 832

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2014-404-001796 [2015] NZHC 832

UNDER the Trustee Act 1956

AND UNDER

the Receiverships Act 1993

IN THE MATTER

of a claim to set aside a settlement agreement and for damages

BETWEEN

BEVIN HALL SKELTON Plaintiff

AND

DARAN NAIR Defendant

Hearing: 17 April 2015

Appearances:

Plaintiff in person
EJ Werry for Defendant

Judgment:

24 April 2015

JUDGMENT OF ASHER J

This judgment was delivered by me on Friday, 24 April 2015 at 3pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
S McDonald, Auckland.
EJ Werry, Auckland.

Copy to: Plaintiff.

SKELTON v NAIR [2015] NZHC 832 [24 April 2015]

Introduction

[1] The defendant Daran Nair applies to strike out this claim brought by Bevin Hall Skelton. He relies on r 15.1(c) and (d) of the High Court Rules, namely that the proceeding is frivolous or vexatious, or is an abuse of the process of the court.

[2] The original statement of claim, undated but filed on 17 July 2014, ran to 17 pages and contained hundreds of clauses and subclauses. Mr Skelton has throughout been self-represented.

[3] On 28 August 2014 Mr Nair applied to strike out Mr Skelton’s statement of claim, asserting amongst other things that the statement of claim was prolix, vexatious and an abuse of process.

[4] When the case was called it was adjourned to give the plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended statement of claim. An amended statement of claim was filed and served on 3 November 2014, and it is that which is the subject of this application to strike out.

[5] The ground relied on is that the allegations of fact which the claim is based on were the subject of a full and comprehensive settlement in earlier proceedings in this court filed under CIV-2006-404-2924 and CIV-2007-404-5247. It is stated that the terms of the settlement are a complete bar to the claim and accordingly it is frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of process.

[6] It appears that in 2006 Mr Skelton and his wife at the time were involved in litigation. Mr Nair is a chartered accountant and he was ultimately appointed as a receiver of a partnership known as the Urban and Country Partnership (UCP) which was in effect a partnership of the respective trusts of Mr and Mrs Skelton.

[7] Mr Nair commenced proceedings in his name as receiver of UCP, against Mr Skelton’s trust and another associated trust, seeking recovery against the trustees of $439,000.

[8] There was a settlement conference on 4 August 2008 before an Associate Judge. Settlement was reached and a heads of agreement was executed by the parties. There were then two later deeds of settlement on 30 August 2008 and in February 2009. There were complete settlement clauses in the August and February agreements. It is submitted for Mr Nair that in the light of the settlements that were reached and the agreement that all claims were at an end,…

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 Skelton v Nair

Details

AGLC: Skelton v Nair [2015] NZHC 832
Case: [2015] NZHC 832
Decision Date: 24 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Daran Nair has applied to the High Court of New Zealand to strike out a claim brought by Bevin Hall Skelton, alleging that the proceeding is frivolous or vexatious and an abuse of the court's process. The claim seeks to set aside a settlement agreement and to recover damages for the sale of a half share in an apartment in Australia. Nair argues that the claim is barred by a comprehensive settlement reached in earlier proceedings between the parties. The Court considered the criteria for striking out a claim, including whether the cause of action was untenable and whether the proceeding was an abuse of process. The Court found that the settlement agreements reached in the earlier proceedings were comprehensive and included all claims related to the sale of the apartment. Skelton's claim was therefore barred by the settlement agreements, and the proceeding was an abuse of process. The Court struck out the claim and ordered Skelton to pay Nair's costs on a standard basis.

This case highlights the importance of comprehensive settlement agreements and the potential consequences of pursuing claims that have already been settled. The Court found that Skelton's claim was barred by the settlement agreements, which expressly covered all claims related to the sale of the apartment. The Court also found that Skelton's claim was an abuse of process, as it sought to relitigate matters that had already been resolved. The case serves as a reminder that parties should carefully consider the terms of settlement agreements and the potential consequences of pursuing claims that have already been settled.

Orders