FRESHMAX NZ LIMITED V OAK GLEN ORCHARDS LIMITED HC NAP CIV-2011-441-000827

FRESHMAX NZ LIMITED V OAK GLEN ORCHARDS LIMITED HC NAP CIV-2011-441-000827

Most of the defendants' asserted set-offs lacked sufficient evidential foundation or quantification to defeat summary judgment except two matters supported by evidence: an arguable oral fixed price agreement for smaller Braeburns giving a quantified shortfall of $11,216.94 and accountancy costs evidenced at $5,000.00. The court therefore allowed a partial set-off of $16,216.94 and entered summary judgment for the undisputed balance of $80,349.99 plus GST (if any) and interest, reserving other matters to trial or further procedure.

Citation
openlaw-0a207810_0429_4625_8b4f_7bf5334c3056.pdf
Parties
Plaintiff: Freshmax NZ Limited; First Defendant: Oak Glen Orchards Limited; Second Defendant: Family Trio Limited; Third Defendant: Michael John Alcock; Fourth Defendant: Donald Bruce Steedman
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
4 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Commercial Supply and Finance Dispute / Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Partial summary judgment for plaintiff; defendants have limited arguable set-offs which must be determined at trial or further proceedings
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Set Off, Guarantee, Supply Agreement, Loan Agreement, Misleading and Deceptive Conduct, Interest, Costs
Contract Commercial Law Civil Procedure Equity (set Off) Consumer Protection (fair Trading Act) Summary Judgment Set Off Guarantee +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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Freshmax NZ Limited

Plaintiff

Oak Glen Orchards Limited

First Defendant

Family Trio Limited

Second Defendant

Michael John Alcock

Third Defendant

Donald Bruce Steedman

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Supply and Finance Dispute / Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants have arguable set-offs sufficient to defeat summary judgment
  2. 2 Whether Freshmax breached supply agreements (failure to pay, failure to endeavour to obtain best price, misleading price indications)
  3. 3 Whether there was an oral fixed price agreement for smaller Braeburn apples

Ratio Decidendi

Most of the defendants' asserted set-offs lacked sufficient evidential foundation or quantification to defeat summary judgment except two matters supported by evidence: an arguable oral fixed price agreement for smaller Braeburns giving a quantified shortfall of $11,216.94 and accountancy costs evidenced at $5,000.00. The court therefore allowed a partial set-off of $16,216.94 and entered summary judgment for the undisputed balance of $80,349.99 plus GST (if any) and interest, reserving other matters to trial or further procedure.

Court Disposition

Partial summary judgment for plaintiff; defendants have limited arguable set-offs which must be determined at trial or further proceedings

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $80,349.99 plus GST (if any)
  • Judgment for interest (2010 year) on $80,349.99 from date of advances to date of judgment at Base Lending Rate (commercial) as published by plaintiff's bank; leave reserved to counsel to file memoranda quantifying interest within 15 working days