A fight
for control of the multi-million dollar Green Group following the death of
patriarch Hugh Green has become a tragedy of Shakespearean proportions with open
warfare between brother and sister resulting in the High Court intervening to
appoint independent trustees to take control.
Hugh Green died in 2012, aged 80. He stood at the head of a complex group of
companies and trusts with assets valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars,
generated in the main by property development.
His legal legacy has been a painful stoush between the two oldest
children: son John and daughter Maryanne with John seeking to oust sister
Maryanne from her previous position of control within the Green Group and
Maryanne adamant John is not fit to make business decisions pointing to serious
“irregularities” when John was previously employed by the Green Group. In the background stands an eminence grise, Auckland lawyer Michael
Fisher, whom Maryanne alleges tried to engineer her exclusion from the business
while elevating both John and himself into positions of power.
After a marathon 24 hearing days in the High
Court at Auckland, Justice Winkelmann made a wide ranging series of rulings:
invalidating Hugh Green’s last will made three months prior to death because of
undue influence by John in having himself and Mr Fisher appointed trustees
(trustees of the will have power to appoint trustees of the Green Group’s
operations and through that the power to appoint directors of Green Group
companies); confirming Maryanne was still a trustee of the Green Group (despite
a supposed coup by John and Mr Fisher in having her removed); and declared that
Mr Fisher had not been validly appointed as trustee of the Green Group because
of undue influence exercised by John over father Hugh.
Evidence was given of the deep antipathy
between Maryanne and John. Maryanne’s
business life was intertwined with her father’s business interests. She was employed by Green companies from
1987. For fifteen years up to 2012 she
was chief executive of the Green group. She
has a reputation for detail; employing extensive procedures which the court was
told she is relentless in requiring others to follow. She keeps detailed diary notes of all
important business conversations. This
style finds no favour with John, described by Justice Winkelmann as having a
radically different business style according little respect to process and
paying little regard to Maryanne’s processes.
The High Court heard detailed evidence of move
and countermove within the Green family during Hugh Green’s final months. Justice Winkelmann painted a picture where
every step taken to remove Maryanne from control seems to have been instigated
by someone other than Hugh. A point was
reached where Hugh was a passive figure when it came to big decisions. He was terminally ill with cancer, weak and
tired. He was trapped between the
stridently expressed demands of two powerful personalities, but one of them,
John, was more powerful and skilful in managing the situation. Maryanne objects to John having any
responsible position within the Green group because of what she sees as his
past dishonesty, poor financial position and what she views as his less than
professional business approach. There
was evidence from a 1994 internal investigation that John had been stealing from
the company: documentation misrepresented underlying transactions, company
funds were missapplied without authority and cash was taken for his own
purposes. The amount involved exceeded $270,000. The court was told John left for Australia in
the mid-1990s returning to work for the Green Group in 2009 as an administrator
for the Hugh Green Foundation – a charity wing of the Green Goup.
As an interim measure, Justice Winkelmann
appointed two independent outsiders as trustees of the Green Group: Christopher
Robert Darlow and David Harding Randell.
Green v.
Green – High Court (03.06.15 & 02.07.15)
15.060