ARCHERS ROAD TRUST COMPANY LTD v JMR BUSINESS LTD [2016] NZHC 2987
The stay was dismissed because the defendants' interlocutory steps fell within the clause 12.2 exception for urgent interlocutory relief and did not constitute waiver or submission to the Court; the third plaintiff's claims likely fall outside the expert determination clause as drafted (clause directed to Vendor and Purchaser disputes and expert determination is intended for technical subject-matter connection); and the pleaded claims involve mixed questions of fact and law requiring witnesses, cross-examination and judicial oversight and are therefore not appropriately determined by an expert whose determinations are final and lack appeal, so the balance of factors disfavors a stay.
- Citation
- [2016] NZHC 2987
- Parties
- First Plaintiff: Archers Road Trust Company Limited; Second Plaintiff: Malcolm Hayward Udy; Third Plaintiff: Mt Wellington Marine Limited; First Defendant: JMR Business Limited; Second Defendant: James Nicholas Robinson; Third Defendant: Melissa Robinson
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 12 December 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Civil (contract, Negligence, Directors' Duties) / Interlocutory Application for Stay and Referral to Expert Determination
- Outcome
- Application for stay of proceeding dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Expert Determination Clause, Stay of Proceedings, Waiver/submission to Jurisdiction, Interim Freezing and Charging Orders, Directors' Duties, Warranty and Indemnity, Amenability to Expert Determination
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Archers Road Trust Company Limited
First Plaintiff
Malcolm Hayward Udy
Second Plaintiff
Mt Wellington Marine Limited
Third Plaintiff
JMR Business Limited
First Defendant
James Nicholas Robinson
Second Defendant
Melissa Robinson
Third Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil (contract, Negligence, Directors' Duties) / Interlocutory Application for Stay and Referral to Expert Determination
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether to stay the High Court proceeding and refer disputes to expert determination under clause 12 of the Agreement
- 2 Whether the defendants submitted to the Court's jurisdiction or waived the right to require expert determination by taking interlocutory steps
- 3 Whether the third plaintiff's claims fall within the scope of the expert determination clause
Ratio Decidendi
The stay was dismissed because the defendants' interlocutory steps fell within the clause 12.2 exception for urgent interlocutory relief and did not constitute waiver or submission to the Court; the third plaintiff's claims likely fall outside the expert determination clause as drafted (clause directed to Vendor and Purchaser disputes and expert determination is intended for technical subject-matter connection); and the pleaded claims involve mixed questions of fact and law requiring witnesses, cross-examination and judicial oversight and are therefore not appropriately determined by an expert whose determinations are final and lack appeal, so the balance of factors disfavors a stay.
Court Disposition
Application for stay of proceeding dismissed
Orders
- Application for stay dismissed
- If parties cannot agree costs, memoranda in support may be filed within 10 working days, with memoranda in response filed five working days thereafter
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment