DONOVAN V NIXON & ORS HC HAM CIV 2006-419-505

DONOVAN V NIXON & ORS HC HAM CIV 2006-419-505

Summary judgment was dismissed because the proposed amendment would be unfair, the evidence was insufficient to conclude there was no bona fide defence, factual disputes existed about payments (including a $60,000 payment and allocations involving a $5,000 payment to a third party), and interest considerations under...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
openlaw-fbde5baf_f51f_4c60_940c_e848b887a95b.pdf
Parties
Plaintiff: Michael Philip Donovan; First Defendant: Clancy Nixon; Second Defendant: Money Managers Limited; Third Defendant: Edgar Holdings Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
6 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil (franchise and Contract) / Summary Judgment Application (dismissed)
Outcome
Application for summary judgment dismissed; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Money Had and Received, Damages, Contractual Remedies Act 1979, Statutory Interest Under Judicature Act 1908
Contract Law Franchise Law Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Money Had and Received Damages Contractual Remedies Act 1979 Statutory Interest Under Judicature Act 1908

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Philip Donovan

Plaintiff

Clancy Nixon

First Defendant

Money Managers Limited

Second Defendant

Edgar Holdings Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (franchise and Contract) / Summary Judgment Application (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment should be granted against the second and third defendants for unpaid purchase monies
  2. 2 Whether the second and third defendants are holding funds as money had and received for the plaintiff
  3. 3 Whether there is no bona fide defence such that summary judgment may be granted under r136 High Court Rules

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment was dismissed because the proposed amendment would be unfair, the evidence was insufficient to conclude there was no bona fide defence, factual disputes existed about payments (including a $60,000 payment and allocations involving a $5,000 payment to a third party), and interest considerations under s87 required fuller inquiry; therefore summary disposal was inappropriate.

Court Disposition

Application for summary judgment dismissed; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Application for summary judgment dismissed.
  • Costs reserved.