Sabrina Saltmarsh

The Estate Trustee brought an application primarily seeking occupation rent and other damages from the Respondents, who had resided in the deceased's property since his death and refused to vacate.

The court found the Respondents liable for occupation rent, utility expenses, and other damages, including costs for property remediation and lock changes.

The Respondents' claim that the deceased intended for them to remain in the property without compensation was rejected, as a prior court had already found the supporting document inauthentic.

The court dismissed the Estate Trustee's claim for interest charges due to insufficient documentation.

The applicant Estate Trustee sought directions at a case conference regarding multiple late affidavits filed by the respondents, who had refused to vacate the deceased's property.

The court ordered that portions of the respondents' affidavits be struck for improperly referencing without prejudice settlement offers, attempting to relitigate previously decided issues, and raising matters outside the scope of the application.

Noting the respondent Michael Siiman's history as a declared vexatious litigant and his abusive conduct, the court imposed strict procedural conditions for the upcoming hearing, including communication restrictions and a prohibition on filing further affidavits.

The parties, equal shareholders and directors of two closely-held houseware liquidation companies, experienced a breakdown in their business relationship.

The applicant sought leave to bring derivative actions against the respondent for alleged self-dealing and breach of fiduciary duty, as well as an interlocutory injunction to remove him as a director.

The respondent brought cross-applications to wind up the companies, claiming the parties were deadlocked and had previously agreed to wind up the business.

The court granted leave for the derivative actions, finding a well-founded basis for the claims.

However, the court dismissed the request for an interlocutory injunction, finding no irreparable harm.

The court also declined to order a winding-up at this stage, directing that the cross-applications be tried together with the derivative and oppression actions, as viva voce evidence was required to resolve credibility issues and determine the appropriate remedy.