Houghton v Saunders

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 135/2016
[2017] NZSC 55

BETWEEN

ERIC MESERVE HOUGHTON
Applicant

AND

TIMOTHY ERNEST CORBETT SAUNDERS, SAMUEL JOHN MAGILL, JOHN MICHAEL FEENEY, CRAIG EDGEWORTH HORROCKS, PETER DAVID HUNTER, PETER THOMAS AND JOAN WITHERS
First Respondents

CREDIT SUISSE PRIVATE EQUITY INC
Second Respondent

CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON ASIAN MERCHANT PARTNERS LP
Third Respondent

FIRST NEW ZEALAND CAPITAL
Fourth Respondent

FORSYTH BARR LIMITED
Fifth Respondent

Hearing:	5 April 2017
Court:	Elias CJ, Arnold and OʼRegan JJ
Counsel:	P A B Mills and G R Abdale-Weir for Applicant A R Galbraith QC, D J Cooper and S V A East for First Respondents (other than Mr Magill) T C Weston QC for Mr Magill J B M Smith QC, A S Olney and C J Curran for Second and Third Respondents D H McLellan QC and J S Cooper for Fourth Respondent A C Challis and D P Turnbull for Fifth Respondent
Judgment:	2 May 2017

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal is granted (Houghton v Saunders [2016] NZCA 493).

B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The approved question is worded to allow the applicant to pursue the points raised in his application for leave. We note the respondents’ expressions of intention to support the Court of Appeal judgment on other grounds.
Given the complexity of the issues the applicant raises, the Court would be grateful for the assistance of senior counsel at the hearing.
The Court would like to set a fixture for the hearing of the appeal in the last week of July, if possible. The Registrar will liaise with counsel about both the length of the hearing and the fixture date.

Solicitors:
Wilson McKay, Auckland for Applicant
Bell Gully, Auckland for First Respondents
Russell McVeagh, Wellington for Second and Third Respondents
Fee Langstone, Auckland for Fourth and Fifth Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Eric Meserve Houghton, an applicant, filed an appeal against Timothy Ernest Corbett Saunders and other respondents. The appeal concerns a significant financial dispute involving multiple parties, including financial institutions and private equity firms. The primary issue in the case revolves around whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant's appeal, which seeks to challenge the lower court's decisions regarding the financial transactions and agreements in question. The case has garnered considerable attention due to its complexity and the involvement of high-profile financial entities.

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, focusing on the approved question of whether the Court of Appeal had correctly dismissed the applicant's appeal. The court acknowledged the multifaceted nature of the issues raised by the applicant and recognized the need for thorough examination, especially given the involvement of senior counsel in the proceedings. The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of understanding the lower court's rationale and the broader implications of the financial dispute. The complexity of the case necessitated a detailed hearing, and the Supreme Court aimed to schedule the appeal for the last week of July, coordinating closely with the counsel to determine the appropriate length of the hearing and the fixture date.

The reasoning behind the Supreme Court's decision to grant leave to appeal underscores the significance of the financial and legal questions at hand. The court recognised the necessity of senior counsel's input to navigate the intricate financial matters and legal principles involved. This decision sets the stage for a comprehensive review of the Court of Appeal's judgment, ensuring that all aspects of the financial dispute are meticulously examined. The Supreme Court's approach reflects its commitment to resolving complex financial cases with precision and due consideration of all legal arguments presented.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established