HADDON v G E CUSTODIANS SC 87/2011

HADDON v G E CUSTODIANS SC 87/2011

No arguable issue of public importance or miscarriage of justice justified leave to appeal: the contract was not a credit contract for which disclosure obligations were breached, the conduct was not oppressive on the facts, and discovery was not required before summary judgment where no inducement or misrepresentation was pleaded.

Citation
SC 87/2011
Parties
Applicant: Gary Francis Haddon; First Respondent: G E Custodians; Second Respondents: Barbara Gale Haddon; Barbara Gale Haddon in her capacity as trustee of the Haddon Family Trust
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
6 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Mortgage/contract Dispute; Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court / Leave to Appeal Application Following Summary Judgment in High Court and Dismissal on Appeal in Court of Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Oppression, Credit Contract Classification, Disclosure Obligations, Discovery, Stay of Execution
Contract Law Mortgage Law Consumer Credit Law Equity Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Oppression Credit Contract Classification +3 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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gary Francis Haddon

Applicant

G E Custodians

First Respondent

Barbara Gale Haddon; Barbara Gale Haddon in her capacity as trustee of the Haddon Family Trust

Second Respondents

Procedural Posture

Mortgage/contract Dispute; Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court / Leave to Appeal Application Following Summary Judgment in High Court and Dismissal on Appeal in Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether the mortgage contract was a credit contract triggering statutory disclosure obligations
  2. 2 whether the lender contracted out of applicable statutory protections
  3. 3 whether the lender's conduct was oppressive

Ratio Decidendi

No arguable issue of public importance or miscarriage of justice justified leave to appeal: the contract was not a credit contract for which disclosure obligations were breached, the conduct was not oppressive on the facts, and discovery was not required before summary judgment where no inducement or misrepresentation was pleaded.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal dismissed
  • Costs to first respondent of $2,500 awarded