Stewart v Stewart - [2022] NZHC 263

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CIV-2020-454-5

[2022] NZHC 263

BETWEEN
TIMOTHY DAVID STEWART

First Plaintiff

SIMONE SUSAN STEWART
Second Plaintiff

TIMOTHY DAVID STEWART and

SIMONE SUSAN STEWART as litigation guardians for their four children

Third Plaintiffs

AND

DAVID ALAN STEWART

First Defendant

JAMES ROBERT STEWART
Second Defendant

JANET DOROTHY STEWART
Third Defendant

JOHN NAYLOR
Fourth Defendant

DAVID ALAN STEWART, JANET DOROTHY STEWART, JAMES ROBERT STEWART and
JOHN NAYLOR as trustees of the Hiwinui Trust

Fifth Defendants

Hearing: 17 September 2021

Appearances:

R J B Fowler QC and D M Brabant for plaintiffs T C Stephens and G M Richards for defendants

Judgment:

23 February 2022

STEWART v STEWART [2022] NZHC 263 [23 February 2022]

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE JOHNSTON

Introduction

[1] This is an opposed application by the plaintiffs concerning the defendants’ discovery.

[2] The factual background is not especially complicated. The Stewarts are a Manawatu farming family. Their mixed farming operation involves significant landholdings in the area. Structurally, the farm involves the members of the family, three companies (Stewart Farms Ltd, Stewart Dairy Lands Ltd and Hiwinui Country Estate (2003) Ltd) and a trust (the Hiwinui Trust).

[3] The members of the family that presently have governance of the farming operation are David and Janet Stewart. They have three adult children, James Stewart, Timothy Stewart, and Julia Stewart.1 The case concerns the manner in which David and Janet have allegedly dealt with James and his wife, Deborah, on the one hand, and Tim and his wife, Simone, on the other hand.

[4] At the risk of oversimplifying things, Tim and Simone say that having regard to the contributions that Tim in particular has made to the family farming operation over many years, promises or undertakings David and Janet have made to him, and understandings within the family, David and Janet are obliged to make certain arrangements for his future and have failed to do so. That contention has generated no fewer than ten causes of action as pleaded in the most recent iteration of the statement of claim. This dispute has resulted in a deep schism in the family. David and Janet remain involved in the farming operation, as do James and Deborah, but Tim and Simone are now off the farm. Julia and her husband operate a related business, and seem to be one step removed from the dispute.

1 For convenience in the balance of this judgment I will use Christian names to refer to the members of the Stewart family which I trust this will not be interpreted as discourteous.

[5] Tim and Simone commenced this proceeding on 31 January 2021. All parties have provided standard discovery in terms of pt 8 of the High Court Rules. The current amended notice of application was filed and served by the plaintiffs on 13 August 2021.2 The plaintiffs say that the defendants’ discovery is inadequate in a number of respects.

[6]In their application the…

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 Stewart v Stewart

Details

AGLC: Stewart v Stewart [2022] NZHC 263
Case: [2022] NZHC 263
Decision Date: 23 February 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involves a family dispute over the management of a farming operation and the distribution of assets within the family. The plaintiffs, Timothy David Stewart and Simone Susan Stewart, have brought proceedings against several family members and entities, including the Hiwinui Trust, alleging mismanagement and breaches of agreements. The case has resulted in a deep schism within the family. The plaintiffs have made an application for additional discovery, challenging the adequacy of the defendants' discovery and seeking orders for the production of specific categories of documents. The court must decide whether the plaintiffs' application is within the scope of the pleadings and whether the orders sought are appropriate. The court also considers the admissibility of expert evidence provided by the plaintiffs. The court finds that some aspects of the application were not properly within its scope, but grants the plaintiffs leave to amend their application. Regarding the claims to privilege, the court orders the defendants to discover certain categories of documents, recognising that the defendants may be entitled to claim privilege in respect of aspects of it. The court also orders the defendants to discover specific categories of documents, subject to privilege claims. The court declines to make orders in relation to other categories of documents, finding that there is no evidence raising a doubt about the reliability of the defendants' discovery. The court considers the admissibility of expert evidence provided by the plaintiffs and decides to accept the evidence, at least for the purposes of dealing with this interlocutory application. The court makes orders for discovery and sets out a timetable for the trial, acknowledging the inconvenience that the delay in allocating an alternative fixture may cause to scheduling. Costs are reserved, to be determined by the parties or by the court if necessary.

Orders