Law firm Farry Law was disqualified from acting in fiercely fought litigation between two branches of the Stebbing family after allegations it has taken a partisan approach assisting brother Robert whilst still acting as supposedly independent trustee of a Stebbing family trust.
Vaughan Stebbing alleges his brother is conniving to cut Vaughan’s children out of their expected inheritance of Stebbing assets. Robert alleges he was misled in discussions following their father’s 2009 death which led to corporate restructuring seeing Vaughan’s children being the ultimate beneficiaries of Stebbing family assets.
Their father Eldred Stebbing became a legend in music circles, setting up an Auckland recording studio in the 1950s.
At time of his death, he owned a fifty per cent stake in two companies: Stebbing Recording Centre Ltd and Stebbing Properties Ltd. Sons Robert and Vaughan each held a twenty five per cent stake.
The High Court was told subsequent corporate restructuring saw multiple family trusts established. Trust deeds were carefully drafted to avoid spouses having any claim against Stebbing assets on divorce.
The High Court was told that Robert only learnt decades later that nearly all Stebbing assets might pass eventually to Vaughan’s children; his spouse could inherit only an eight per cent stake held in Robert’s own name.
A monumental falling out between brothers has seen each suing the other.
The court was told Vaughan’s 2023 offer to buy out his brother at $13 million was refused.
In a preliminary High Court hearing, Vaughan had legal advisors Farry Law restrained from acting as counsel for brother Robert in any subsequent court hearing.
He alleges Robert, in league with Farry Law as family trustee, is secretly rewriting trust deeds to now exclude his children as beneficiaries.
He alleges copies of draft documents were not released when requested, while copies with critical sections redacted were provided to accounting advisors.
Associate Judge Sussock said this highly charged dispute has arisen through a failure to provide documents when requested, with no real explanation given.
Farry Law’s legal advice to Robert is likely to be a central issue in any subsequent court hearing, she said. It is not appropriate for Farry Law to then also represent Robert in court, she ruled.
Lawyers cannot be a witness at trial and also act as counsel; there is a clear conflict, affecting counsel’s objectivity.
Stebbing v. Stebbing – High Court (5.12.25)
26.040