COPLAND V GOODWIN HC DUN CIV-2004-412-000346

COPLAND V GOODWIN HC DUN CIV-2004-412-000346

The application to set aside the 11 October 2006 judgment is dismissed because the defendant cannot rely on r15.16 for post-judgment events, has not met the high threshold for invoking the Court's inherent jurisdiction (no grave miscarriage of justice shown), the alleged breach of the removal term lacks sufficient...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
openlaw-cec76285_4ff0_4374_bf75_fabd66f354bb.pdf
Parties
Plaintiff: Brian Stewart Copland; Defendant: Wayne Ernest Goodwin
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
30 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Judgment Enforcement / Setting Aside Application / Application to Set Aside Judgment Entered on Admission (inherent Jurisdiction)
Outcome
Defendant's application to set aside judgment dismissed
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Judgment, Inherent Jurisdiction, Settlement Agreement, Contractual Remedies Act 1979, Delay and Prejudice
Civil Procedure Contract Law Equity Setting Aside Judgment Inherent Jurisdiction Settlement Agreement Contractual Remedies Act 1979 Delay and Prejudice

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian Stewart Copland

Plaintiff

Wayne Ernest Goodwin

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Judgment Enforcement / Setting Aside Application / Application to Set Aside Judgment Entered on Admission (inherent Jurisdiction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court should set aside a judgment entered on admission using its inherent jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether rule 15.16 High Court Rules applied or was available
  3. 3 Whether breach of a settlement 'removal' clause justified setting aside the judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The application to set aside the 11 October 2006 judgment is dismissed because the defendant cannot rely on r15.16 for post-judgment events, has not met the high threshold for invoking the Court's inherent jurisdiction (no grave miscarriage of justice shown), the alleged breach of the removal term lacks sufficient gravity, the defendant's unexplained and lengthy delay caused significant prejudice, and the appropriate remedy for any breach is a contractual claim for damages rather than setting aside the judgment.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application to set aside judgment dismissed

Orders

  • The defendant's application dated 7 May 2012 is dismissed
  • The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs on a 2B basis together with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar