ROBINSON V ARNOTT HC AK CIV-2011-404-5831

ROBINSON V ARNOTT HC AK CIV-2011-404-5831

Documents relating to the December 2009 transfer of Holly Way to the third defendant are not relevant to the plaintiffs' pleaded claim because the existence of any constructive trust depends on events and traceability at the time of the May 2008 acquisition; post-acquisition documents cannot influence that inquiry and therefore particular discovery is not warranted.

Citation
openlaw-a76635de_f932_4d0a_a1cf_26d47f0ec314.pdf
Parties
First Plaintiff: Darren Paul Robinson; Second Plaintiff: Darren Paul Robinson; Second Plaintiff: Felicity Jane Robinson; Second Plaintiff: Steven Allan Fowler; First Defendant: Gregory Alan Arnott; Second Defendant: Australian Securities (NZ) Limited; Third Defendant: Arnott Trustee Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
20 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim (constructive Trust, Equitable Remedies, Negligence, Fair Trading Act) / Discovery / Interlocutory Application for Particular Discovery
Outcome
Application for particular discovery dismissed
Legal Topics
Constructive Trust, Remedial Constructive Trust, Particular Discovery, Relevance at Discovery, Imputation of Director's Knowledge to Company, Unconscionability, Tracing
Equity Trusts Property Civil Procedure Negligence Consumer Protection Constructive Trust Remedial Constructive Trust +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Darren Paul Robinson

First Plaintiff

Darren Paul Robinson

Second Plaintiff

Felicity Jane Robinson

Second Plaintiff

Steven Allan Fowler

Second Plaintiff

Gregory Alan Arnott

First Defendant

Australian Securities (NZ) Limited

Second Defendant

Arnott Trustee Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim (constructive Trust, Equitable Remedies, Negligence, Fair Trading Act) / Discovery / Interlocutory Application for Particular Discovery

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether documents relating to the December 2009 transfer of 11 Holly Way to Arnott Trustee Ltd are relevant to the plaintiffs' pleaded claim for a constructive trust and thus discoverable
  2. 2 Whether the scope of the plaintiffs' unconscionability pleading permits inquiry into post-acquisition events and third-party transactions
  3. 3 Whether the knowledge of the first defendant can be imputed to the third defendant

Ratio Decidendi

Documents relating to the December 2009 transfer of Holly Way to the third defendant are not relevant to the plaintiffs' pleaded claim because the existence of any constructive trust depends on events and traceability at the time of the May 2008 acquisition; post-acquisition documents cannot influence that inquiry and therefore particular discovery is not warranted.

Court Disposition

Application for particular discovery dismissed

Orders

  • Application for particular discovery dismissed