HARRISON & ANOR v KEOGH [2016] NZHC 1555

HARRISON & ANOR v KEOGH [2016] NZHC 1555

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed points did not raise questions of law or fact of sufficient public or private importance to outweigh cost and delay; the matters were largely fact-specific, previously considered by lower courts, involved modest sums and limited prospects of success, and would unduly burden appellate resources; the High Court's application of estoppel and remedy was appropriate on the facts, and personal liability of the director was justified by his personal assurances and conduct rather than piercing the corporate veil.

Citation
[2016] NZHC 1555
Parties
First Appellant: Aidan Joseph Harrison; Second Appellant: Wellington City Helicopters Limited; Respondent: John Patrick Joseph Keogh
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
11 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Appeal / Leave Application (s 67 Judicature Act 1908)
Outcome
Applications for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Implied Terms, Equitable Estoppel, Personal Liability of Directors, Piercing the Corporate Veil, Expectation Vs Reliance Damages, Leave to Appeal
Contract Law Equity Company Law Civil Procedure Appeal Law Remedies Implied Terms Equitable Estoppel +4 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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aidan Joseph Harrison

First Appellant

Wellington City Helicopters Limited

Second Appellant

John Patrick Joseph Keogh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Appeal / Leave Application (s 67 Judicature Act 1908)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted under s 67(1) of the Judicature Act 1908
  2. 2 Application of tests for implying contractual terms (BP Refinery / Belize / Hickman)
  3. 3 Nexus required between reliance and detriment for estoppel

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed points did not raise questions of law or fact of sufficient public or private importance to outweigh cost and delay; the matters were largely fact-specific, previously considered by lower courts, involved modest sums and limited prospects of success, and would unduly burden appellate resources; the High Court's application of estoppel and remedy was appropriate on the facts, and personal liability of the director was justified by his personal assurances and conduct rather than piercing the corporate veil.

Court Disposition

Applications for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Applications for leave to appeal by both appellants dismissed
  • Respondent entitled to costs; if no agreement, respondent to file memorandum of costs by 29 July 2016