WILLOCK v HUNT [2020] NZHC 1325

WILLOCK v HUNT [2020] NZHC 1325

The Term Loan Agreement was not a consumer credit contract for the CCCF Act (loan was for an investment/company purpose), so ss 9C and 40 did not apply. The May/June 2011 Deed validly varied the Term Loan Agreement, created a Current Debt of $483,840 and suspended interest pending demand but permitted the lender to demand repayment and seek interest on default. Although the borrower defaulted by failing to make the March 2012 payment under the Deed, interest did not start to accrue until the lender made demand. The 19 March 2018 letter of demand, which fixed a repayment date of 2 May 2018, constituted the required demand and thus interest at the contractual rate of 10% per annum...

Citation
[2020] NZHC 1325
Parties
Plaintiff: Catherine Marjorie Willock; First Defendant: Tony James Hunt; Second Defendant: Paul Ronald Stoddart
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
12 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application – Debt Recovery / Hearing on Summary Judgment (formal Proof)
Outcome
Summary judgment for plaintiff Catherine Marjorie Willock against second defendant Paul Ronald Stoddart
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Term Loan Agreement, Deed of Variation, Default Interest, CCCF Act Consumer Credit, Contract Interpretation, Demand and Accrual of Interest, Costs
Contract Law Civil Procedure Debt Recovery Consumer Credit Law Equity (estoppel) Summary Judgment Term Loan Agreement Deed of Variation +5 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 8 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Catherine Marjorie Willock

Plaintiff

Tony James Hunt

First Defendant

Paul Ronald Stoddart

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application – Debt Recovery / Hearing on Summary Judgment (formal Proof)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What were the repayment obligations under the Term Loan Agreement?
  2. 2 Whether the Term Loan Agreement was a consumer credit contract under the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 (CCCF Act) and if so whether the lender breached that Act
  3. 3 Whether the May/June 2011 Deed varied the Term Loan Agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The Term Loan Agreement was not a consumer credit contract for the CCCF Act (loan was for an investment/company purpose), so ss 9C and 40 did not apply. The May/June 2011 Deed validly varied the Term Loan Agreement, created a Current Debt of $483,840 and suspended interest pending demand but permitted the lender to demand repayment and seek interest on default. Although the borrower defaulted by failing to make the March 2012 payment under the Deed, interest did not start to accrue until the lender made demand. The 19 March 2018 letter of demand, which fixed a repayment date of 2 May 2018, constituted the required demand and thus interest at the contractual rate of 10% per annum...

Court Disposition

Summary judgment for plaintiff Catherine Marjorie Willock against second defendant Paul Ronald Stoddart

Orders

  • Second defendant to pay plaintiff $483,840.00 plus interest at 10 percent per annum, compounding annually, from 2 May 2018 until payment
  • Second defendant to pay plaintiff costs of $16,252.00