Ex-wife's million dollar claim fails

Photo / File

The ex-wife of a former bankrupt property developer has failed in her attempt to revive her multi-million dollar claim against a set of lawyers that allegedly helped put relationship assets out of her reach.

Wendy Perriam was married to property developer Mark Perriam for 13 years before they separated in 2004. Mark Perriam was a director of Perron Group and with his business partner owed more $146 million after it failed last decade.

He was declared bankrupt in 2010.

After a protracted relationship property dispute, Wendy Perriam targeted lawyers who were instructed by her then husband.

She brought a claim against five Invercargill lawyers from a firm called Macalisters, including her brother-in-law Lawrence Wilkes.

In her claim, Perriam alleges the solicitors were instructed by her husband to set up trusts and companies to hold business assets.

A judgement from the High Court in 2012 describes her claim as alleging the defendants "were involved in creating these structures and completing a range of transactions affecting them to knowingly defeat her interests in relationship property".

Wendy Perriam's four causes of action variously sought from hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars of damages.

But two years ago Associate Judge David Gendall struck out Perriam's claim in its entirety and did not think its "repeated deficiencies" could be remedied.

He said Perriam had embellished the latest version of her claim with "unsubstantiated allegations including liberal claims of fraud".

Perriam's lawyer then in July applied for Justice Mark Woolford to review the associate judge's decision.

The review was effectively an appeal and an attempt to revive the statement of claim.

But Justice Woolford, in a decision released this afternoon, said he agreed with the associate judge that Perriam's claim did not disclose a reasonably arguable cause of action.

"It is my view that counsel for the plaintiff has substantially misconstrued the obligations of a firm of solicitors such as Macalisters when acting for a husband and wife and a business run by the husband. It seems that the plaintiff has only issued proceedings against Macalisters because her ex-husband is bankrupt and the companies, trust and other entities...have now been wound up or ceased trading. There is no money available.

The plaintiff probably now regrets not accepting Mr Perriam's offer of $1.6 million to settle the relationship property proceedings. Mr Perriam was to borrow the money to settle the proceedings, but was unable to do so when he bankrupted. Macalisters cannot now be held liable for her lost opportunity...," Justice Woolford said.

The High Court judge believed the alleged losses suffered by Perriam were not caused by any actions or omissions of Macalisters.

"It is for the plaintiff to establish a reasonably arguable cause of action. This she has consistently failed to do so," Justice Woolford said.

The judge awarded the five lawyers costs.