ARNOLD JENSEN (2005) LIMITED V TREVOR JAMES BILLS AND ANOR HC CHCH CIV 2008-409-001349

ARNOLD JENSEN (2005) LIMITED V TREVOR JAMES BILLS AND ANOR HC CHCH CIV 2008-409-001349

Leave to appeal was declined because, although the s80 issues were arguable and of public interest, the modest amount in dispute, the disproportionate additional costs of a Court of Appeal hearing, and the peculiar factual history made the case unsuitable to test the statutory issue; public importance did not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
openlaw-19bbe194_7ca6_4b3d_8ff3_efd8473d59c0.pdf
Parties
Applicant: Arnold Jensen (2005) Limited; First Respondent: Trevor James Bills; Second Respondents: William Gary Foster; John Neville Creighton; Malcolm Findlayson Holly as Trustees of the Bills Family Trust
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
26 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / High Court Leave Application Following Judgment of 10 October 2008
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Construction Contracts Act 2002 S80, Prescribed Manner of Service, Alternative Methods of Service, Leave to Appeal Under Judicature Act S67
Construction Law Civil Procedure Contract Law Statutory Interpretation Service of Process Construction Contracts Act 2002 S80 Prescribed Manner of Service Alternative Methods of Service +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arnold Jensen (2005) Limited

Applicant

Trevor James Bills

First Respondent

William Gary Foster; John Neville Creighton; Malcolm Findlayson Holly as Trustees of the Bills Family Trust

Second Respondents

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / High Court Leave Application Following Judgment of 10 October 2008

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the phrase "prescribed manner" in s80 of the Construction Contracts Act 2002 displaces the alternative methods of service in ss80(a),(b),(c)
  2. 2 Whether the High Court should grant leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal given the public importance of the s80 interpretation
  3. 3 Whether there is a conflict between West City Construction Ltd v Edney and the High Court decision of 10 October 2008 on s80 interpretation

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was declined because, although the s80 issues were arguable and of public interest, the modest amount in dispute, the disproportionate additional costs of a Court of Appeal hearing, and the peculiar factual history made the case unsuitable to test the statutory issue; public importance did not outweigh cost and delay.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal dismissed