Rob Latton is a skilled and experienced trial and appellate advocate. He has extensive experience in the superior courts of New Zealand, as well as England and Wales. Rob has a broad practice that includes civil, trust and estate, commercial, and regulatory proceedings. As well as his advocacy skills, he is recommended for his robust and pragmatic advice, and his sound commercial and strategic judgement.
Practising Areas of Law
Biography
Rob accepts instructions in most areas of civil and commercial litigation. He has particular expertise in shareholder disputes and director’s duties, trust and estate law, negligence and breach of duty claims, competition and fair trading, and regulatory prosecutions.
Rob acts for:
executors and trustees of estates;
professionals (particularly valuers, solicitors and accountants) accused of breach of duty;
beneficiaries of estates and trusts;
insurers;
shareholders involved in shareholder disputes;
company directors in civil and regulatory claims;
corporations in disputes with landlords;
businesses and individuals accused of breaches of the Commerce and Fair Trading Acts;
liquidators and receivers;
parties claiming against professional advisors
He has successfully appealed judgments to the Court of Appeal, and has appeared in numerous successful applications for interim injunctions, freezing orders, search and seizure orders, and appointment of interim liquidators.
Rob has more than 30 years’ experience in commercial and civil litigation. He started his career in civil and commercial at Chapman Tripp in 1989, with a particular focus primarily on competition and fair trading litigation.
In 1994 Rob moved to the United Kingdom, where he worked for the UK’s leading commercial litigation firm, Herbert Smith. Whilst in the UK he was granted rights of audience in the Higher Courts. He appeared as advocate numerous times in the Queen’s Bench and Chancery Divisions of the High Court.
Rob returned to New Zealand in 2000, initially at Russell McVeagh. He appeared as counsel on many large commercial and Commerce Act cases. Since 2003 he has appeared regularly in the High Court and Court of Appeal as sole or senior counsel.
Rob came to the bar in 2015. He has since appeared in a significant number of large scale civil cases and regulatory prosecutions.
Significant Cases
Chiem v Chiu & Others
This was a major dispute between the joint venture shareholders of a property development. It involved claims of negligence, breach of a shareholders’ agreement and breaches of fiduciary duty being made against one of the shareholders by the others. The litigation involved three separate proceedings in the High Court. Rob acted for the defendant shareholder.
The dispute arose out of a number of different contracts, as well as fiduciary duties said to arise from the joint venture nature of the relationship between the parties. The case was unusual in that as well as involving the normal contractual and fiduciary duties said to arise in a joint venture, the plaintiffs alleged special duties arising out of chinese cultural concept of “guanxi”.
Over the three separate proceedings the shareholder successfully defended the negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of shareholder’s agreement claims.
Hawaiki Submarine Cable LP v Tonga Cable Limited & the Kingdom of Tonga
Hawaiki Submarine Cable LP (“Hawaiki”) was a company that developed underseas fibre optic cabling. It built an underseas cable connecting New Zealand, Australia and the Pacific with the United States. Hawaiki entered into a contract with Tonga Cable Limited to build a “spur” that would allow Tongan internet traffic to connect to Hawaiki’s undersea cable. Tonga Cable was to pay US $1,400,000 for the spur. The Kingdom of Tonga guaranteed payment. Unfortunately, both defaulted on payment.
Rob acted for Hawaiki in seeking summary judgment in New Zealand against Tonga Cable and the Kingdom of Tonga. The Tongan entities protested the jurisdiction of the New Zealand High Court over the dispute. The main ground was that whilst the Tonga Cable contract specified that New Zealand law applied, the Kingdom of Tonga’s guarantee did not.
In a first for a New Zealand Court, the High Court accepted that the “doctrine of infection” applied in New Zealand. That is, where a contract is governed by a given law, the courts will infer that the parties to a guarantee of that contract intended the guarantee to be governed by the same law.
Accordingly, both Tonga Cable’s and the Kingdom of Tonga’s protest of jurisdiction failed. Shortly after, the dispute was settled to Hawaiki’s advantage.
Benjamin Brian Francis v Gross (Podular Housing Systems Limited (In liquidation))
Podular Housing Systems Limited (“Podular”) was a manufacturer of modular houses. It built them in a factory before transporting them to the owner’s land. Once on the land the house would be connected to services and the owner would take possession. Podular had sold modular houses to at least thirty customers. Unfortunately, it went into liquidation with the modular houses of at least fifteen owners still being constructed in Podular’s factory. The liquidators of Podular claimed effective ownership of those partially complete houses. The liquidators’ position was that they should be sold, and the proceeds distributed to all of Podular’s creditors.
The owners of the partially completed houses had all paid significant deposits, in most cases of hundreds of thousands of dollars. If the liquidators had sold the houses, the owners would have lost their deposits and their incomplete modular house. The proceeds of sale would have been distributed to secured and preferred creditors, leaving the owners with nothing.
Rob acted for six of the owners. The matter went to the High Court where the owners successfully argued that they had an equitable lien over their partially completed modular houses. This meant that the liquidator could not sell them, and that they remained the property of the owner. The liquidator appealed this decision, but subsequently settled the matter on terms that resulted in the owners all obtaining possession of their partially completed houses, and recovering the majority of their deposits.
Taylor Business Advisory Limited v Ogier & Another
A dispute between the former shareholders of an accounting business, where the plaintiffs accused the defendant (represented by Rob) of numerous breaches of duties. On the third day of the High Court trial, after a one-day cross-examination of the principal plaintiff by Rob, the plaintiffs discontinued their claim and paid a significant contribution towards the defendants’ costs.
Burgess & Anor v Monk & Ors (No. 2)
A very unusual High Court application by the beneficiary plaintiff to force the executor defendants to make interim distributions from an estate. The purpose of the distributions sought was to allow the plaintiff to fund his other claims against the executor defendants. The application was successfully defended.
Body Corporate 198900 v Bhana Investments Limited & Others
A High Court claim brought by the body corporate of a Viaduct Basin building to prevent the bars and restaurants on the ground floor from conducting operations out of doors. The claim turned on the interpretation of the body corporate’s rules. It was successfully defended on the basis of the interpretation advanced by the defendants.
James v McMahon Butterworth Thompson
A High Court claim brought against a firm of solicitors for alleged negligence in relation to preparation of a lease. The claim was successfully defended on the basis of a Limitation Act 1956 defence. Costs were awarded to the defendant.
Newport v Coburn & Ors
A successful appeal to the Court of Appeal after special leave to appeal was obtained. The appellant had been found liable for breaches of the Fair Trading Act. The High Court’s finding was overturned in respect of one defendant, and quantum of damages substantially reduced in respect of the other. Costs were awarded to the appellant.
Burgess & Another v Monk & Others (No. 6)
A large, lengthy and complex claim alleging breaches of executors’ and trustees’ duties, breach of fiduciary duties, dishonesty, negligence, and breach of contract. The alleged breaches were said to run over the period from 1980 to 2010, and included allegations of failure to properly manage assets, failure to provide all relevant information to beneficiaries, sales of assets at an undervalue and breach of contract.
The allegations, along with a large number of procedural matters, were traversed in a High Court trial running from September to December 2017.
After five judgments on various matters arising during the proceedings, the Rob’s executor clients were successful in all aspects of the case. They also succeeded in obtaining a full indemnity for their defence costs.
Kaye v Norris Ward McKinnon
A High Court claim brought against a firm of solicitors for alleged negligence. After a two week trial, the case was successfully defended, with increased costs awarded to the defendants. The judgment was subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeal.
Richmastery Limited v Richmastery (Central) Limited & Others
A High Court claim where a franchisee attempted to establish a competing business against it franchisor. The franchisor successfully obtained an interim injunction preventing the franchisee, and its principals and directors, from breaching a restraint of trade provision in the original franchise agreement.
Contact
