BRADFIELDS LTD v BROOKWATER INVESTMENTS LTD [2019] NZHC 1609

BRADFIELDS LTD v BROOKWATER INVESTMENTS LTD [2019] NZHC 1609

On the material before the Court the amended supplementary briefs were provisionally admissible; the three witnesses possess sufficient specialised experience in marketing and wholesaling pet care products to give evidence that is likely to be of substantial help on issues of mitigation and marketability, and ultimate admissibility and weight of any opinion evidence is to be determined by the trial Judge after full testing at trial; the late service justified apology but did not produce unacceptable prejudice warranting exclusion now.

Citation
[2019] NZHC 1609
Parties
First Plaintiff: Bradfields Limited; Second Plaintiff: Matthew Peter Sullivan; Third Plaintiff: Gabrielle Lee Sullivan; First Defendant: Brookwater Investments Limited (formerly Bradfield Marketing Limited); Second Defendant: Paul William Bradfield; Third Defendant: Malley & Co.
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
10 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Contract (sale of Business) and Related Regulatory/commercial Dispute / Pre Trial (two Week Trial Scheduled; Ruling on Admissibility of Supplementary Evidence)
Outcome
Application by plaintiffs to exclude the amended supplementary briefs denied at this stage; evidence provisionally admissible and left for determination as to weight and final admissibility by the trial Judge
Legal Topics
Mitigation of Loss, Admissibility of Expert Opinion Evidence, Supplementary Briefs (high Court Rules R9.8), Opinion Vs Factual Observation (evidence Act Ss23 25), Gatekeeping of Expert Evidence
Contract Evidence Civil Litigation Regulatory Compliance Professional Negligence Mitigation of Loss Admissibility of Expert Opinion Evidence Supplementary Briefs (high Court Rules R9.8) +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bradfields Limited

First Plaintiff

Matthew Peter Sullivan

Second Plaintiff

Gabrielle Lee Sullivan

Third Plaintiff

Brookwater Investments Limited (formerly Bradfield Marketing Limited)

First Defendant

Paul William Bradfield

Second Defendant

Malley & Co.

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contract (sale of Business) and Related Regulatory/commercial Dispute / Pre Trial (two Week Trial Scheduled; Ruling on Admissibility of Supplementary Evidence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether amended supplementary briefs served out of timetable are admissible
  2. 2 Whether witnesses Langan, Littler and Henderson qualify to give opinion evidence as experts or as factual observers
  3. 3 Whether opinion evidence as to marketability and impact of label changes is admissible under Evidence Act ss23-25

Ratio Decidendi

On the material before the Court the amended supplementary briefs were provisionally admissible; the three witnesses possess sufficient specialised experience in marketing and wholesaling pet care products to give evidence that is likely to be of substantial help on issues of mitigation and marketability, and ultimate admissibility and weight of any opinion evidence is to be determined by the trial Judge after full testing at trial; the late service justified apology but did not produce unacceptable prejudice warranting exclusion now.

Court Disposition

Application by plaintiffs to exclude the amended supplementary briefs denied at this stage; evidence provisionally admissible and left for determination as to weight and final admissibility by the trial Judge

Orders

  • Declined to rule the contested amended briefs inadmissible at this stage
  • Leave to determine ultimate admissibility and weight of the evidence reserved to the trial Judge after full testing at trial