YARROW v PETTIGREW [2013] NZHC 1901

YARROW v PETTIGREW [2013] NZHC 1901

Summary judgment was refused because genuine factual disputes exist about the basis and validity of the alleged delegations and Mr Pettigrew's knowledge/involvement that cannot be resolved summarily; however, balancing the parties' interests and given the plaintiff's impecuniosity but doubtful strength of the claim,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] NZHC 1901
Parties
Plaintiff: Paul Steven Yarrow; First Defendant: Colin Ritchie Pettigrew; Second Defendant: Duncan Dovico (NZ) Limited; Third Defendant: Duncan Dovico Trustees Limited; Third Defendant: Paul Steven Yarrow
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
30 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Trust Dispute (breach of Trust and Knowing Assistance) / Interlocutory Applications: Summary Judgment and Security for Costs
Outcome
Summary judgment application dismissed; security for costs granted; proceeding stayed pending provision of security
Legal Topics
Breach of Trust, Knowing Assistance, Summary Judgment, Security for Costs, Power of Attorney, Delegation of Trustee Powers
Trusts Law Civil Procedure Costs Breach of Trust Knowing Assistance Summary Judgment Security for Costs Power of Attorney +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Steven Yarrow

Plaintiff

Colin Ritchie Pettigrew

First Defendant

Duncan Dovico (NZ) Limited

Second Defendant

Duncan Dovico Trustees Limited

Third Defendant

Paul Steven Yarrow

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trust Dispute (breach of Trust and Knowing Assistance) / Interlocutory Applications: Summary Judgment and Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the payments of $297,615.73 were authorised by the trustees or a valid delegate
  2. 2 Whether Mr Pettigrew knowingly assisted in a breach of trust
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment is appropriate given competing evidential accounts

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment was refused because genuine factual disputes exist about the basis and validity of the alleged delegations and Mr Pettigrew's knowledge/involvement that cannot be resolved summarily; however, balancing the parties' interests and given the plaintiff's impecuniosity but doubtful strength of the claim, it was just to order security for costs in the modest sum of $20,000 and stay the proceeding pending provision of that security.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment application dismissed; security for costs granted; proceeding stayed pending provision of security

Orders

  • Plaintiff to give security for defendants' costs in the sum of $20,000 cash or other security to the satisfaction of the Registrar
  • Proceeding stayed pending the giving of security