Williams v Cameron - [2013] NZHC 1794

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

CIV 2013-442-218 [2013] NZHC 1794

BETWEEN PETER ANTHONY WILLIAMS First Appellant

WILLIAMS TURBOCHARGERS LIMITED
Second Appellant

ANDTREVEOR NELSON CAMERON First Respondent

ROBIN WHALLEY Second Respondent

RICHARDS WOODHOUSE Third Respondent

Hearing: 16 July 2013
(Heard at Wellington)

Counsel: Appellant P A Williams in person
J M Morrison for Respondents

Judgment: 16 July 2013

ORAL JUDGMENT OF THE HON JUSTICE KÓS

[1] On 26 October 2012 District Court Judge Tuohy delivered a judgment holding that a professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claim brought by the plaintiffs against the defendant accountants was in most respects debarred from action by a settlement agreement made on 19 December 2007. It followed that the plaintiffs were estopped from prosecuting the settled aspects of the claim. The judgment was precise as to those parts of the claim settled and those parts that were
not.

WILLIAMS & ANOR v CAMERON & ORS [2013] NZHC 1794 [16 July 2013]

[2] On 14 January 2013 the plaintiffs applied to the Judge for recall of his judgment. The essence of the recall application was an allegation that the defendant Mr Cameron and his solicitors had knowingly made false statements to the Court, and produced “fabricated” documents. On 15 April 2013 the Judge held that such allegations lay beyond the scope of recall. The application for recall was dismissed.

[3] This is an appeal from that decision.

Background

[4] The background to the present dispute is set out in a judgment of Mallon J two years earlier, setting aside a decision of the District Court striking out the plaintiffs’ claim.1 It will suffice for present purposes to record that:

(a) The defendant accountants acted for the plaintiffs (as vendors) and for another client (as purchaser) on the sale of a business owned by the plaintiffs.

(b)The plaintiffs take the view that the defendants were in conflict of interest in doing so. And that in the course of that conflict they had prepared a valuation for the purchaser (showing a value range of between $822,000 to $957,000). The purchaser ultimately paid only
$800,000 for the business. The plaintiffs take the view that the defendants’ actions caused them loss (calculated initially at $157,000 plus interest).

(c) The defendant accountants sent an invoice to the plaintiffs’ company, Turbochargers NZ Limited, in February 2007. It was for $8,597. Subsequently, the plaintiffs sent the defendants an invoice for “losses incurred in the sale of business”, calculated as I have said initially in
the amount of $157,000 plus interest.

1 Williams v Cameron HC Nelson CIV 2010-442-222, 22 September 2010. For simplicity of understanding I will continue to use the expressions “plaintiffs” for the appellants, and “defendants” for the respondents.

(d)Subsequently, the defendant Mr Cameron pleaded guilty before the Institute of Chartered Accountants of New Zealand Professional Conduct Committee of various breaches of the ICANZ code of ethics. These related to the management of conflicts and the failure to document properly matters such as his engagement and…

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 Williams v Cameron

Details

AGLC: Williams v Cameron [2013] NZHC 1794
Case: [2013] NZHC 1794
Decision Date: 16 July 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Williams v Cameron was a legal dispute heard in the High Court of New Zealand. The case involved a professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claim brought by the plaintiffs, Peter Anthony Williams and Williams Turbochargers Limited, against the defendant accountants. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had caused them loss in the sale of a business by preparing a valuation that was lower than expected. The court was required to decide whether the plaintiffs' claims were settled by a settlement agreement made on 19 December 2007, and if so, whether the defendants had knowingly made false statements to the court and produced fabricated documents.

The court found that the plaintiffs' claims were indeed settled by the settlement agreement. The court held that the settlement occurred during a telephone conversation between Mr French, the plaintiffs' accountant, and Mr Cameron, one of the defendants. The court relied on several factors, including an email sent by Mr French confirming the agreement and the subsequent actions of Mr Cameron in crediting the accounting bill. The court also found that the recall application, which sought to set aside the judgment on the grounds of alleged fraud, was misconceived and dismissed the appeal. The court held that the appropriate course of action for the plaintiffs would have been to initiate new proceedings to set aside the original judgment.

The final outcome of the case was that the appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the defendants on a category 2B basis. The court held that the District Court Judge had correctly applied the relevant rules and followed the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Redcliffe Forestry Ventures Ltd. The court also noted that the allegations of fraud made by the plaintiffs were unsubstantiated and did not meet the required standard of proof beyond conjecture and surmise.

Orders