Failing to push on with a court case filed some nine years previously alleging embezzlement was dismissed for want of prosecution; part of a series of inter-family disputes also involving arguments over child access and a home improvement loan.
All names were supressed following a hearing in the High Court at Whangarei. In 2006, a family business was established, given the name Panoptic for the court record. Directors were given aliases as a Mr Acker with his son-in-law as a Mr Lisbet. They were 50/50 shareholders. The two fell out spectacularly when Mr Acker accused his son-in-law of stealing Panoptic property and setting up a rival business in competition. In 2012, Panoptic took legal action against Mr Lisbet alleging a breach of directors’ duties. This court case was put on hold when Mr Acker laid complaints of theft with police. Police charged Mr Lisbet with theft in 2014 after a search warrant was executed at his home. They later decided not to proceed; charges were withdrawn. Mr Acker then hired a private investigator. This led to police laying one further charge against Mr Lisbet for theft. Police offered no evidence when the case was called; the charge was dismissed and a suppression order imposed. Yet another criminal charge against Mr Lisbet in 2020 was withdrawn by police five months later.
In the interim, Mr Acker pursued a series of court cases against his son-in-law: judgment ordering repayment of monies lent for home improvement; a successful application to gain access to his grandchildren; and a conviction for contempt of court after Mr Lisbet failed to surrender a company laptop.
Then in 2021 new life was breathed into Panoptic’s 2012 case alleging Mr Lisbet’s breach of directors’ duties with an amended claim filed in court. Mr Lisbet applied to have the case thrown out; his father-in-law was being vindictive, he said.
Associate judge Bell dismissed Panoptic’s claim for want of prosecution. The long delay hampered Mr Lisbet’s ability to defend the case. In dispute were events taking place between 2008 and 2012. He could not be expected to remember in detail events occurring that far back, Judge Bell ruled. There was a real risk that there would not be a fair hearing.
There had been inordinate delay by Panoptic in progressing the case, Judge Bell said. Civil action alleging breach of directors’ duties and criminal action alleging theft are not alternatives, he said. Civil action by Panoptic against Mr Lisbet claiming damages could have proceeded in parallel with attempts to have police prosecute.
Panoptic v. Lisbet – High Court (18.10.21)
21.170