CLODE & ANOR v SULLIVAN FAMILY TRUST NO 1 & ORS [2016] NZHC 529

CLODE & ANOR v SULLIVAN FAMILY TRUST NO 1 & ORS [2016] NZHC 529

Leave to amend was granted because on balance the interests of justice required the new cause of action to be pleaded, the court would not prejudge the merits of rectification on a short hearing, the applicant's delay was reasonably explained, and any prejudice to defendants could be managed by tightening and adjusting the trial timetable and imposing strict filing deadlines.

Citation
[2016] NZHC 529
Parties
First Plaintiff: Brent Douglas Clode; Second Plaintiff: Synergy Management Limited; First Defendants: Michael Grant Sullivan and Duthco Trustees (Sullivan) Limited as trustees of the Sullivan Family Trust No 1; Second Defendant: David Roberts Jans; Third Defendant: Thompson Park Trust Limited as trustee of the Thompson Park Trust
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
24 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Contract Dispute (civil) / Pre Trial; Application for Leave to Amend Statement of Claim After Close of Pleadings
Outcome
Leave granted to file Amended Statement of Claim; timetable varied and conditional deadlines imposed
Legal Topics
Rectification, Contractual Remedies, Amendment of Pleadings, Cancellation of Contract, Statutory Demand
Contract Law Equity Civil Procedure Rectification Contractual Remedies Amendment of Pleadings Cancellation of Contract Statutory Demand

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brent Douglas Clode

First Plaintiff

Synergy Management Limited

Second Plaintiff

Michael Grant Sullivan and Duthco Trustees (Sullivan) Limited as trustees of the Sullivan Family Trust No 1

First Defendants

David Roberts Jans

Second Defendant

Thompson Park Trust Limited as trustee of the Thompson Park Trust

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contract Dispute (civil) / Pre Trial; Application for Leave to Amend Statement of Claim After Close of Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to amend the Statement of Claim after close of pleadings
  2. 2 Whether a rectification cause of action is tenable given alleged cancellation of the Agreement
  3. 3 Whether the proposed amendment would cause prejudice or unacceptable delay

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend was granted because on balance the interests of justice required the new cause of action to be pleaded, the court would not prejudge the merits of rectification on a short hearing, the applicant's delay was reasonably explained, and any prejudice to defendants could be managed by tightening and adjusting the trial timetable and imposing strict filing deadlines.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to file Amended Statement of Claim; timetable varied and conditional deadlines imposed

Orders

  • Leave granted to plaintiffs to file and serve the Amended Statement of Claim in the form filed with the 10 March 2016 application (as necessary to discontinue claims against the second defendant) by 5 pm Wednesday 30 March 2016
  • Defendants' amended Statement of Defence and evidence on the plaintiffs to be served by 5 pm Sunday 3 April 2016 and filed in court by 9 am Monday 4 April 2016