PARORE BOAT CHARTERS LTD V K TRAVERS AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2007-404-001294

PARORE BOAT CHARTERS LTD V K TRAVERS AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2007-404-001294

Notice of the hearing was validly served at the defendant's address for service and the summary judgment was regularly obtained; on interpretation of the deed of settlement the obligation to pay $241,022.50 was due on 20 December 2007 with time being of the essence and defendants were jointly and severally liable, so the first defendant had no substantial defence and the application to set aside the judgment fails.

Citation
openlaw-4d483ec0_ef9a_40ef_8dcf_8393d94a2def.pdf
Parties
Plaintiff: Parore Boat Charters Ltd; First Defendant: Kelvin Travers; Second Defendant: TDL Marine Painters Ltd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
2 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract Claim (summary Judgment Enforcement) / Application to Set Aside Summary Judgment After Judgment Entered
Outcome
Application to set aside summary judgment declined.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Setting Aside Default/summary Judgment, Deed of Settlement Interpretation, Guarantor and Joint and Several Liability, Frustration of Contract, Service and Address for Service
Contract Law Civil Procedure Arbitration Insolvency Summary Judgment Setting Aside Default/summary Judgment Deed of Settlement Interpretation Guarantor and Joint and Several Liability +2 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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Parore Boat Charters Ltd

Plaintiff

Kelvin Travers

First Defendant

TDL Marine Painters Ltd

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract Claim (summary Judgment Enforcement) / Application to Set Aside Summary Judgment After Judgment Entered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether notice of the summary judgment hearing was validly served and judgment regularly obtained
  2. 2 Whether the first defendant has a substantial/arguable defence to the plaintiff's claim
  3. 3 Whether the deed of settlement required payment of the principal sum by 20 December 2007 (time being of the essence) or merely triggered interest under clause 6

Ratio Decidendi

Notice of the hearing was validly served at the defendant's address for service and the summary judgment was regularly obtained; on interpretation of the deed of settlement the obligation to pay $241,022.50 was due on 20 December 2007 with time being of the essence and defendants were jointly and severally liable, so the first defendant had no substantial defence and the application to set aside the judgment fails.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside summary judgment declined.

Orders

  • Application to set aside judgment declined.
  • Judgment for $241,022.50 (with interest as provided) remains in force.