GREYMOUTH HOLDINGS V JET TRUSTEES HC AK CIV 2011-404-005309

GREYMOUTH HOLDINGS V JET TRUSTEES HC AK CIV 2011-404-005309

The opposed amendments were declined because they were sought at an excessively late stage after close of the plaintiffs' case and closing submissions, would cause real prejudice to the defendants, introduced materially different claims beyond the facts relied on in the served notices, and impermissibly sought to use an amended pleading to satisfy mandatory contractual notice requirements.

Citation
openlaw-936d084e_4bc7_4dda_8334_ec22b2f934f3.pdf
Parties
First Plaintiff (civ 2011 404 005309); Second Defendant (civ 2011 404 005442): Greymouth Holdings Limited; Second Plaintiff (civ 2011 404 005309); First Defendant (civ 2011 404 005442): R M P Dunphy; Third Plaintiff (civ 2011 404 005309); Seventh Defendant (civ 2011 404 005442): P H Masfen; Third Plaintiff (civ 2011 404 005309); Seventh Defendant (civ 2011 404 005442): J A Masfen; First Defendant (civ 2011 404 005309); Second Plaintiff (civ 2011 404 005442): Jet Trustees Limited; Second Defendant (civ 2011 404 005309); First Plaintiff (civ 2011 404 005442): J G Sturgess; Third Defendant (civ 2011 404 005309): John Sturgess & Associates Limited; Fourth Defendant and Cross Claimant (civ 2011 404 005309); Eighth Defendant (civ 2011 404 005442): Greymouth Petroleum Holdings Limited; Third Defendant (civ 2011 404 005442): Richard Shane Dunphy; Third Defendant (civ 2011 404 005442): Wendy Dunphy; Fourth Defendant (civ 2011 404 005442): Jugen Kadel; Fifth Defendant (civ 2011 404 005442): Tower Hill Investors LLP; Sixth Defendant (civ 2011 404 005442): Germanda Holdings Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
13 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Application to Amend Statement of Claim (post Trial) / Amendment Application After Close of Evidence and Completion of Plaintiffs' Closing Submissions
Outcome
Application to amend third amended statement of claim allowed in part and refused in part; two substantive opposed amendments refused
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Shareholder Agreement, Deadlock Clause, Event of Default, Amendment of Pleadings, Notice Requirements
Contract Company Law Civil Procedure Equity Specific Performance Shareholder Agreement Deadlock Clause Event of Default +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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Greymouth Holdings Limited

First Plaintiff (civ 2011 404 005309); Second Defendant (civ 2011 404 005442)

R M P Dunphy

Second Plaintiff (civ 2011 404 005309); First Defendant (civ 2011 404 005442)

P H Masfen

Third Plaintiff (civ 2011 404 005309); Seventh Defendant (civ 2011 404 005442)

J A Masfen

Third Plaintiff (civ 2011 404 005309); Seventh Defendant (civ 2011 404 005442)

Jet Trustees Limited

First Defendant (civ 2011 404 005309); Second Plaintiff (civ 2011 404 005442)

J G Sturgess

Second Defendant (civ 2011 404 005309); First Plaintiff (civ 2011 404 005442)

John Sturgess & Associates Limited

Third Defendant (civ 2011 404 005309)

Greymouth Petroleum Holdings Limited

Fourth Defendant and Cross Claimant (civ 2011 404 005309); Eighth Defendant (civ 2011 404 005442)

Richard Shane Dunphy

Third Defendant (civ 2011 404 005442)

Wendy Dunphy

Third Defendant (civ 2011 404 005442)

Jugen Kadel

Fourth Defendant (civ 2011 404 005442)

Tower Hill Investors LLP

Fifth Defendant (civ 2011 404 005442)

Germanda Holdings Limited

Sixth Defendant (civ 2011 404 005442)

Procedural Posture

Application to Amend Statement of Claim (post Trial) / Amendment Application After Close of Evidence and Completion of Plaintiffs' Closing Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiffs should be permitted to amend to add a new deadlock resolution dated 31 October 2011 after close of case
  2. 2 Whether plaintiffs should be permitted to amend to add a new Event of Default allegation that defendants 'allowed' confidential information to be provided to Methanex
  3. 3 Whether an amended pleading can substitute for the contractual notice requirements in the Shareholder Agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The opposed amendments were declined because they were sought at an excessively late stage after close of the plaintiffs' case and closing submissions, would cause real prejudice to the defendants, introduced materially different claims beyond the facts relied on in the served notices, and impermissibly sought to use an amended pleading to satisfy mandatory contractual notice requirements.

Court Disposition

Application to amend third amended statement of claim allowed in part and refused in part; two substantive opposed amendments refused

Orders

  • Leave granted to amend the statement of claim as set out in the draft fourth amended statement of claim provided to the Court except that the two opposed amendments are refused
  • The two refused amendments are (a) addition of a resolution dated 31 October 2011 as a basis for cl 6 deadlock relief, and (b) addition of an Event of Default alleging that the Masfens 'allowed' confidential information to be provided to Methanex in breach of cl 15.2