BIOMIX TRUSTEES LTD v PHILLIP JOHN WILSON [2019] NZHC 1488

BIOMIX TRUSTEES LTD v PHILLIP JOHN WILSON [2019] NZHC 1488

On the evidence there was no satisfactory explanation for the second to fourth defendants' failure to take any steps and no real prospect of a defence on the face of the settlement contract; therefore summary judgment was entered against those defendants. The first defendant’s documented serious chronic illness warranted a narrowly confined adjournment with strict filing deadlines.

Citation
[2019] NZHC 1488
Parties
Plaintiff: BIOMEX TRUSTEES LIMITED; First Defendant: PHILLIP JOHN WILSON; Second Defendant: TEAPOT ENTERPRISES (2008) LIMITED; Third Defendant: P J CONTRACTING (NELSON) LIMITED; Fourth Defendant: PAMELA JANE THOMSON
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
27 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application / First Call Hearing (application)
Outcome
Summary judgment entered against second to fourth defendants; claim against first defendant adjourned to allow limited further steps
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Enforcement of Settlement Agreement, Adjournment for Illness, Directors' Duties and Corporate Representation
Civil Procedure Contract Law Company Law Summary Judgment Enforcement of Settlement Agreement Adjournment for Illness Directors' Duties and Corporate Representation

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BIOMEX TRUSTEES LIMITED

Plaintiff

PHILLIP JOHN WILSON

First Defendant

TEAPOT ENTERPRISES (2008) LIMITED

Second Defendant

P J CONTRACTING (NELSON) LIMITED

Third Defendant

PAMELA JANE THOMSON

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application / First Call Hearing (application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the settlement agreement is enforceable and damages are due under it
  2. 2 Whether defendants have a real prospect of successfully defending the claim
  3. 3 Whether the first defendant's health justifies an adjournment from summary judgment

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence there was no satisfactory explanation for the second to fourth defendants' failure to take any steps and no real prospect of a defence on the face of the settlement contract; therefore summary judgment was entered against those defendants. The first defendant’s documented serious chronic illness warranted a narrowly confined adjournment with strict filing deadlines.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment entered against second to fourth defendants; claim against first defendant adjourned to allow limited further steps

Orders

  • Judgment entered against second to fourth defendants on the terms set out in paragraph 9 of the plaintiff's memorandum dated 25 June 2019, with costs and disbursements awarded in accordance with the plaintiff's memorandum dated 27 June 2019
  • Proceeding adjourned as to the first defendant to 8 August 2019 at 11:00 am