BANK OF NEW ZEALAND v HAYMAN [2018] NZHC 2390

BANK OF NEW ZEALAND v HAYMAN [2018] NZHC 2390 [11 September 2018]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV-2018-404-001459[2018] NZHC 2390BETWEEN BANK OF NEW ZEALANDPlaintiffAND PHOEBE LILIAN HAYMANDefendantHearing: 11 September 2018Appearances: H Snell for the PlaintiffNo appearance by or on behalf of the DefendantJudgment: 11 September 2018JUDGMENT OF WOOLFORD JSolicitors / Counsel:Buddle Findlay, Barristers & Solicitors, Auckland[1] This is an application for summary judgment by the Bank of New Zealandagainst Phoebe Lilian Hayman as guarantor of loans made to Seedling New ZealandLimited. The application was filed on 11 July 2018. It was served on the defendantby her solicitors on 6 August 2018. No steps have been taken by her to defend theproceeding.[2] On or about 30 September 2011, the bank entered into an overdraft facilityagreement with the company. The initial limit was $400,000. Between 20 April 2012and 7 December 2013, the company entered into a further facility agreement with thebank for an additional $800,000. As a result, the bank required additional security andon or about 17 December 2013, the defendant gave a personal guarantee to the bankfor the company's indebtedness.[3] On or about 24 August 2017, the bank and the company entered into a companyterm loan. The company term loan incorporated $200,000 of the facility under theoverdraft facility agreement, which in turn was reduced from $400,000 to $200,000.[4] The company ceased making payments under the agreement on 27 April 2018.On 30 May 2018, by special resolution of its directors, the company was placed intoliquidation. As at 30 May 2018, the amount outstanding under the agreements was$1,651,050.53. By letters, both dated 30 May 2018, the bank made formal demand onthe liquidators of the company for repayment of $1,651,050.53 under the agreementsand formal demand on the defendant as guarantor for $1,470,430 under the guarantee.Despite the demands, the defendant has failed or refused to pay the amountsoutstanding under the agreements.[5] The evidence filed on behalf of the bank confirms that no payment to the bankhas been made by the defendant. The bank has received no further realisations of itssecurity in the liquidation or receivership and the bank does not expect any realisationsof its security from the liquidation or receivership following the 30 May 2018demands.[6] The principles of an application for summary judgment are well known. Thedefendant has no defence to the bank's claims. She has not denied her liability in anyway. She has failed to pay the debt owing to the bank.[7] Accordingly, there will be judgment for the bank against Ms Hayman in thesum of $1,470,430, with interest on that sum from 31 May 2018 until the date ofpayment in full at the rate of 13.11 per cent per annum in terms of the guarantee.[8] In addition, solicitor/client costs of $2,524.40 and disbursements in the sum of$1,217.39 are also awarded to the bank. These are to be paid by Ms Hayman._________________________Woolford J