In a rare move, the High Court blocked possible further attempts to sue a court-appointed receiver bringing finality to repeated litigation disputing division of family trust assets. Stuart Lobb was described as taking repeated steps to frustrate receiver Digby Noyce in a dispute over sale of Mr Lobb’s former family home known as ‘Lothbury,’ in Auckland suburb of Remuera.
Over a six year period since Mr Noyce was appointed receiver, Mr Lobb and his allies have explored every possible legal stratagem to prevent sale of Lothbury, resulting at one point in Mr Lobb being held in contempt of court.
Legal moves and counter-moves have seen Mr Noyce in court multiple times defending attempts to carry out High Court instructions for potential sale of Lothbury. After a sale was achieved, Mr Lobb threatened to sue Mr Noyce, alleging this sale was made ‘off-market and under market value.’
Evidence was given that Mr Lobb is currently suing Lothbury’s purchaser, seeking to recover chattels he alleges were wrongly sold as part of the house sale.
Mr Lobb’s primary complaint has been that he should retain control of Lothbury; he owned the asset before it was transferred to a family trust, he should get it back when the trust is divvied up, he claims.
Mr Noyce was appointed by the High Court in 2020 with authority to sell Lothbury and to divide the proceeds between trust beneficiaries: Mr Lobb and former spouse Verena Ryan. The two separated ten years ago.
With this task complete, Mr Noyce asked to be discharged from his role as court-appointed receiver – a normal procedure.
Unusually, Mr Noyce further asked he be protected from any further litigation from Mr Lobb and his allies.
Mr Lobb continues to allege that Mr Noyce failed to properly do as instructed, has ‘extorted’ money from him, and has breached fiduciary duties as receiver ‘over fifty times.’
He separately complains that Mr Noyce has not properly accounted for money received.
Mr Noyce has made full disclosure of all financial details in his regular reports to court, Justice Andrews said.
In ruling that Mr Noyce and his employees cannot be further sued for steps taken as part of the court-ordered receivership, Justice Andrew followed similar practice in England and Australia where judges have assumed an inherent power to grant immunity in appropriate circumstances.
There is a real risk Mr Lobb will otherwise litigate and re-litigate his perceived grievances, Justice Andrew said.
Ryan v. Lobb – High Court (30.07.26)
26.212