Strahl v McKinnon

Link copied
Case Copied 24 min read

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2013-485-6758 [2014] NZHC 730

BETWEEN

JOHN RUSSELL STRAHL as Trustee of

the O T GOUGH FAMILY TRUST Plaintiff

AND

ALEXANDER MALCOLM McKINNON, JOHN RUSSELL

STRAHL, ANTONY THOMAS GOUGH, TRACY OWEN GOUGH, AVENAL BERYL ELIZABETH McKINNON, LISA ANGELIQUE D’HARCOURT GOUGH, WYNTON GILL COX, NICHOLAS RICHARD WILLIAM DAVIDSON, HARCOURT DAVID GOUGH, JAMES TRACY GOUGH, RACHEL CORALIE KOOPMAN-GOUGH, MATTHEW OWEN McKINNON, SOPHIA AVENAL

ANNA McKINNON, GINA LOUSE SATTERTHWAITE, BENJAMIN THOMAS GOUGH, FIFE HOLDINGS LIMITED

First Defendants

GOUGH HOLDINGS LIMITED Second Defendant

Hearing: 2 April 2014

Counsel:

R J Fowler QC for Plaintiff
A V Foote for Fourteenth, Fifteenth and Sixteenth-named First
Defendants in support of the application
J W A Johnson for First and Fifth-named First Defendants

J A Farmer QC and P Robertson for Third, Fourth, and Ninth- named First Defendants

B D Gray QC for Head Trustees in proceeding CIV-2012-404-
3798 (Auckland Registry)

Judgment:

9 April 2014

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE SMITH

STRAHL v McKINNON AND ORS [2014] NZHC 730 [9 April 2014]

[1]      The   fourteenth,   fifteenth,   and   sixteenth–named   first   defendants   (the applicants) seek orders transferring this proceeding (the Wellington proceeding) to the Auckland Registry of the High Court, and directing that the Wellington proceeding   be   heard   after   proceeding   CIV-2012-404-3798   (the   Directions proceeding) which is pending in the Auckland Registry of the High Court.   The applicants also seek a direction that the Wellington proceeding be heard by the same judge who hears the Directions proceeding.

[2]      Both  the  Wellington  proceeding  and  the  Directions  proceeding  affect  a number of the same parties, who are descendants of the late T T Gough, who died in the 1950s.   T T Gough established the well known New Zealand company Gough Gough and Hamer Ltd in 1929.

[3]      Under his last will (and a series of codicils), T T Gough established various trusts.  The main trust assets were shares in Gough Gough and Hamer Limited.  The beneficiaries  in  the  estate  of  T T Gough  were  the  deceased’s  children  and grandchildren.    All  of  T T Gough’s  children  are  now  deceased.    The  surviving beneficiaries are the third, fourth, fifth, and ninth–named first defendants, being the children  of  T T Gough’s  son  Owen,  and  the  fourteen  and  fifteenth–named  first defendants, being the children of T T Gough’s son Blair.  For convenient reference, the children of Blair Gough have so far been referred to in the Wellington proceeding as the “B T Gough parties”, and the children of Owen Gough (and certain of the children  of the fourth,  fifth  and  ninth  defendants) have been  referred  to  as  the “O T Gough parties”.

[4]      The trusts established in the estate of T T Gough were varied by Deed of Family Arrangement dated 4 October 1962, and by a reorganisation which occurred in 1986 through 1987.  The reorganisation dealt with a range of matters, including difficulties in the administration of the trusts and the management of Gough Gough and Hamer Ltd.  A series of deeds and agreements were approved by the High…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Strahl v McKinnon and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2014] NZHC 730
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, who are the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth named defendants, sought orders transferring the Wellington proceeding to the Auckland Registry and directing that the Wellington proceeding be heard after the Directions proceeding which was pending in the Auckland Registry of the High Court. The applicants also sought a direction that the Wellington proceeding be heard by the same judge who hears the Directions proceeding. The application was opposed by the O T Gough parties, the first and fifth-named first defendants, and the plaintiff. The Wellington proceeding concerned the interpretation of a specific aspect of GHL’s constitution. The applicants submitted that there was a common thread between the Wellington proceeding and the Directions proceeding, which justified consolidation. The applicants also submitted that there were other reasons which justified the transfer of the Wellington proceeding to the Auckland Registry. The application was refused and directions were given for an early fixture for the hearing of the Wellington proceeding. The Wellington proceeding was set down for hearing on 20 and 21 May 2014.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.