Rebecca Ellen Jean Scrimgeour and Mathew Paul Scrimgeour Dispute with Le Epitome Kennels
Our documented account of the dispute involving Rebecca and Mathew Scrimgeour, the Court enforcement process, return of Dita, Rolo and Dove, subsequent veterinary care, and related unauthorised review-site activity.
Bringing Our Dogs Home
In February 2026, after a long-running legal dispute and District Court enforcement proceedings involving Rebecca Scrimgeour and Mathew Scrimgeour of Auckland, Dita, Rolo and Dove finally came home to Le Epitome Kennels.
Dita and Rolo were returned to us on 11 February 2026. Dove, together with her three puppies, was returned on 24 February.
We know that prospective puppy owners — and others searching for information about Rebecca Scrimgeour, Mathew Scrimgeour or Le Epitome Kennels — may come across different accounts of this dispute online. We therefore wanted to set out what actually happened in a clear, straightforward and properly documented way.
This account is based on the written Disputes Tribunal and District Court decisions, together with the veterinary records created after the dogs were returned to us.
How our arrangements with Rebecca and Mathew Scrimgeour began
Our relationship with Rebecca and Mathew Scrimgeour began in 2020.
It originally involved the sale of Louie and the rehoming of Jemima under arrangements that included Le Epitome retaining breeding rights. Over time, that relationship developed into further arrangements involving the care and whelping of dogs, including Dove and Dita.
Eventually, the parties disagreed about who owned particular dogs, what payments were due, and what the arrangements required each side to do.
We sought the return of our dogs and compensation through the Disputes Tribunal. Rebecca and Mathew Scrimgeour disputed our position, asserted ownership rights of their own and sought payment for services and expenses.
Those competing claims were then left for the Tribunal to decide.
What the Tribunal decided
On 8 August 2024, the Disputes Tribunal ordered that Dita and Rolo be returned to Le Epitome Kennels by 6 September 2024.
The order also dealt with Dove differently depending on whether she had already been desexed. If Dove had not been spayed by the date of the Tribunal order, she was to be returned to us. If she had already been spayed, ownership would transfer to the Scrimgeours.
The arrangement involving Jemima similarly contemplated ownership transferring once she had been spayed.
The Tribunal also found that there had been breaches of the parties’ arrangement, including the unauthorised retention of dogs and a litter belonging to Le Epitome Kennels.
The dogs were not returned by the deadline
Although the Tribunal had ordered the dogs to be returned, that did not happen by the September 2024 deadline.
A lengthy enforcement process followed.
Recovery warrants were issued and attempts were made to recover the dogs, but those attempts were unsuccessful.
On 6 October 2025, Judge Spiller recorded the continued failure to comply with the Tribunal order and directed the bailiff to demand and seize Dita, Rolo and Dove under the recovery warrant and deliver them to Le Epitome Kennels.
Another recovery attempt in November 2025 was unsuccessful due to refusal by the Scrimgeours.
By 21 January 2026, detention warrants had been issued against both respondents as part of the enforcement process.
An interim injunction was also made on 2 February 2026 restricting specified dealings with the dogs and requiring relevant records to be preserved. That interim order formed part of the enforcement proceedings and did not finally determine every allegation or ownership issue between the parties.
On 9 February, one respondent was detained in custody. The following day, the Court discharged her on the condition that the dogs were released to us on 11 February.
These were civil enforcement measures used by the Court to secure compliance with the existing orders.
Dita and Rolo come home
Dita and Rolo were handed back to us on 11 February 2026.
Dove was not returned at that time.
The explanation given was that Dove had been desexed and therefore, under the wording of the original Tribunal decision, did not have to be returned.
An Auckland Council dog-registration record supplied by Rebecca Scrimgeour showed Dove as desexed.
The Court required further evidence and sought a signed veterinary letter confirming that Dove had in fact been desexed before the relevant date set out in the Tribunal order.
On 23 February, Justice Clark found that the veterinary letter submitted in support of that explanation had been altered to mislead the Court and that Dove had not been spayed.
The respondent was returned to custody under the existing enforcement warrant.
It is important to be precise about what that means. This was a finding made during civil enforcement proceedings. It was not a criminal conviction.
Dove and her puppies return
The following day, 24 February 2026, Dove along with her three puppies were returned to Le Epitome Kennels.
The Court then confirmed compliance with the return order, cancelled both detention warrants and brought the enforcement proceedings to an end.
After such a long process, the most important thing for us was that the dogs were finally back in our care.
Other people who became involved
The events surrounding the return of the dogs did not involve Rebecca and Mathew Scrimgeour alone.
Elizabeth Eagle
Rebecca Scrimgeour's mother, Elizabeth Eagle, also became involved at various points during the dispute.
On 9 February 2026, Elizabeth made a series of comments on the Le Epitome Kennels Facebook business page discouraging people from purchasing dogs from us and making negative statements about our business and its operators.
She also sent direct Facebook Messenger communications to us during the enforcement period, including the words “Going under... glug glug”.
We regarded the communications as threatening and harmful and preserved copies of them.
On 11 February 2026, Le Epitome Kennels sent Elizabeth a formal cease-and-desist notice asking her to stop publishing statements about us and to stop contacting or engaging with our customers or prospective customers.
Further communications were subsequently received.
We later made a complaint to New Zealand Police concerning threatening communications. On 24 March 2026, Police acknowledged that complaint and referred it for assessment, with the Police classification including “speaks threateningly”. Elizabeth was subsquetly cautioned by NZ Police.
We mention this carefully because the existence of a Police complaint does not itself establish that a criminal offence occurred.
Elizabeth also appears in the evidence surrounding Dove's attempted veterinary treatment.
Judge Clark's 23 February 2026 minute records that a person described in the material as “Mrs Scrimgeour (aka Ms Eagle)” attended Te Aroha Veterinary Services with Dove on 17 February and sought to have Dove spayed.
We subsequently spoke with Te Aroha Veterinary Services and were told that the principal person presenting Dove was an elderly woman named Elizabeth and that Mathew Scrimgeour attended with her.
Because there has been some ambiguity in the names appearing in the veterinary and Court material, we do not rely on that evidence to make any broader allegation against Elizabeth beyond recording her apparent involvement in presenting Dove for veterinary treatment.
Information concerning a puppy transaction involving Emily Scrimgeour
We have also received information relating to the sale of at least one French Bulldog puppy during the period covered by the wider dispute.
A purchaser who wishes to remain anonymous, told us that Emily Scrimgeour was the person she had been dealing with in relation to the puppy transaction and that she had communicated with Emily Scrimgeour and Robert Fry.
She confirmed that a sale and purchase of a French Bulldog puppy had taken place.
She also told us that she knew of another person who had purchased another puppy from the same litter.
In a later telephone conversation, She told us that the puppy she purchased was a male pied French Bulldog, that she paid approximately $1,800 on or about 5 September 2024, and that she collected the puppy from an elderly woman named Elizabeth. When asked whether she meant Elizabeth Eagle, She said yes.
She also told us that the litter contained approximately five or six puppies.
We need to be equally clear about the limits of this evidence.
We have not yet independently verified the puppy's parentage through microchip, veterinary, registration, DNA, payment or other objective records, and we therefore do not state as an established fact that the puppy was progeny belonging to Le Epitome Kennels.
Nor do we presently claim that Emily Scrimgeour received the purchase money or was the legal seller.
What her account does establish for us is that there is a specific puppy transaction involving people connected with the Scrimgeour family that requires further verification.
She provided limited information but did not provide the underlying payment, veterinary, microchip, registration or sale records needed to fully establish the transaction.
For that reason, we continue to invite anyone who purchased or received a French Bulldog or other dog from Rebecca Scrimgeour, Mathew Scrimgeour, Emily Scrimgeour, Elizabeth Eagle, or anyone acting on their behalf during the relevant period to contact Le Epitome Kennels privately.
As explained elsewhere in this account, we do not intend to seek recovery of a dog from an ordinary purchaser who legitimately acquired that dog in good faith without knowledge of an ownership dispute. Our priority is establishing the true breeding, ownership and sale history and making our records accurate.
What we did once the dogs were home
We arranged veterinary examinations after the dogs were returned so that we had an independent picture of their condition and could address anything requiring treatment.
Dita and Rolo were examined at True Vets on 13 February.
Their records show that they came back in different conditions, so it is important not to overstate what those veterinary records say.
Dita
Dita weighed 9.5 kilograms and was assessed as underweight, with a body condition score of 3.5 out of 9.
The veterinarian recorded hair loss and chronic skin changes, mild conjunctivitis and overgrown nails. By the time she was examined, much of the active skin inflammation had already settled.
Her treatment and care included eye drops, nail trimming, a skin supplement and a soothing shampoo.
Rolo
Rolo weighed 15.3 kilograms and was recorded as being in good body condition, with a score of 4 out of 9.
He did, however, have chronic dermatitis with active inflammation, mild infections in both ears, conjunctivitis and overgrown nails.
Treatment was prescribed for his skin, ears and eyes, and his nails were trimmed. A previously damaged nail was also noted to be regrowing without signs of infection.
For both dogs, the veterinarian considered flea allergy to be one possible explanation for the skin changes, while allowing for other possible allergies.
No live fleas or flea dirt were found during those examinations.
It is equally important to explain what the veterinary records do not say. They do not say that both dogs were malnourished, and they do not contain a veterinary finding that the dogs had been neglected.
Dove's examination
Dove was examined on 25 February, the day after she was returned.
She weighed 12.18 kilograms and had a body condition score of 3 out of 9.
The veterinarian recorded severe bacterial infections in both ears, skin and coat problems, and overgrown nails.
She was prescribed antibiotics suitable for a nursing dog, her nails were trimmed, and further ear assessment and skin care were recommended.
The vet also recorded fearful behaviour during the examination.
That concerned us, but we think it is important to be careful about what can and cannot be concluded from it. The examination recorded the behaviour but did not establish what had caused it.
The veterinary notes also contain both clinical findings and background information supplied by us. Our concerns about the dogs’ previous care are therefore separate from the veterinarian’s independent clinical findings.
Their recovery
Once Dita, Rolo and Dove were back with us, we were able to begin treating the health issues that had been identified and return them to consistent routines and care.
By 25 April, we had reported to a veterinarian that their health and behaviour had improved. Dove was still occasionally nipping, but overall we were seeing progress.
Those comments were our observations rather than the result of a new veterinary examination.
Dita was examined again on 9 June, giving us a useful clinical comparison.
By then, she weighed 11.8 kilograms and the veterinarian recorded good body condition and muscle tone, a full coat and clear skin.
Her earlier skin problems and recovery were discussed. Mild conjunctivitis and long front nails were also noted, and her nails were trimmed.
We do not present that examination as proof that every issue affecting every dog had completely disappeared. It simply provides a dated veterinary record showing how Dita was progressing after returning to us.
Dove was retired and desexed and is now living the good life.
After months of recouperation, Dita was cleared for breeding by our vets and we have bred one last litter and have retired her. This was to obtain a suitable replacement for her as she is an imported female. We have now retired Dita.
Why we are publishing this account
The dispute involving Le Epitome Kennels, Rebecca Scrimgeour and Mathew Scrimgeour was difficult and unusually long-running.
For us, the most important outcome was getting Dita, Rolo and Dove home so that they could be examined, treated by vets and returned to consistent care.
We also believe that when there has been a public dispute, people deserve access to the underlying facts and Court history rather than having to rely on fragments, rumours or competing claims found online.
That is why we have tried to clearly distinguish between what the Tribunal and Court decided, what the veterinary records establish, and what remains our own observation or concern.
Addendum: unauthorised review websites
There is one further development we think is relevant to the broader history of this dispute.
While the dispute with Rebecca Scrimgeour and Mathew Scrimgeour was still unfolding, an unauthorised website using the Le Epitome Kennels name and presenting itself as a review website appeared online.
The domain was registered on 5 February 2026, during the period in which the Court enforcement proceedings were active.
We identified the website on 19 March 2026.
We want to be very clear about what we can and cannot say about it.
We have not established who created, operates or controls the website, and we are not alleging that Rebecca Scrimgeour or Mathew Scrimgeour created or operate it.
What we can establish is the timing and the content that appeared on it.
Preserved copies of the website show a series of one-star reviews published between 6 March and 2 May 2026.
A number appeared within a relatively short period during March. They included reviews published under names such as “Anonymous”, “Anonymous Anon”, “Anonymous buyer” and “CB”, rather than clearly identifiable customer names.
We have not been able to identify any of those reviewers as customers in our records.
That pattern concerned us, particularly because the website uses the Le Epitome Kennels name in a way that could cause someone searching for our business to mistake it for an official Le Epitome Kennels website or an established independent review platform.
It is neither.
Le Epitome Kennels Limited does not own, operate, authorise or control that website.
We have preserved evidence relating to the website and its review activity and have raised our concerns through appropriate channels.
We also think it is important not to go further than the evidence allows.
The registration of the domain, the publication of the reviews and the dispute with Rebecca and Mathew Scrimgeour occurred during an overlapping period. That timing does not, by itself, establish who created or operates the website.
We are therefore recording the chronology rather than making an allegation about its ownership as ownership is hidden behind foreign privacy services that did not comply with a New Zealand Court order for disclosure.
Anyone researching Le Epitome Kennels should also be aware that dates appearing inside some review titles or descriptions are not necessarily the dates those reviews were actually published. Where we refer to publication dates above, we are referring to the dates displayed by the website itself.
Were any other Le Epitome dogs transferred?
There is one other matter we are still trying to clarify.
We are concerned that other dogs originally belonging to Le Epitome Kennels may have been transferred, rehomed or sold during the period in which our dispute with Rebecca Scrimgeour and Mathew Scrimgeour was ongoing.
At this stage, we do not want to make claims about any particular dog or purchaser unless and until the records establish what happened.
If you purchased or received a dog from Rebecca Scrimgeour or Mathew Scrimgeour or Emily Scrimgeour or Elizabeth Eagle (Seales) and believe that dog may originally have come from Le Epitome Kennels, we would appreciate hearing from you.
Our purpose is to understand what happened and make sure our ownership, pedigree, breeding and health records are accurate.
We do not intend to seek recovery of a dog from someone who legitimately purchased or received that dog in good faith without knowledge of any ownership dispute.
If that applies to you, please do not be concerned about contacting us. We are interested in establishing the history of the dog, not disrupting a genuine family home.
Any information you can provide — such as the dog's name, microchip number, approximate date of purchase or transfer, photographs, pedigree information or documents supplied at the time — may help us reconcile our records.
Information can be provided privately to Le Epitome Kennels.
Come and see for yourself
If you are considering a puppy from Le Epitome Kennels, you are always welcome to ask us questions.
Better still, come and visit us.
You can meet us, see where our dogs live, meet some of the dogs themselves and make your own assessment of how they are cared for.
We would much rather people see our kennel and our dogs for themselves than rely solely on what they read about us online.
