WEBSTER FARM MANAGEMENT LTD v DARGAVILLE FARMS LTD (IN LIQ) [2020] NZHC 1477

WEBSTER FARM MANAGEMENT LTD v DARGAVILLE FARMS LTD (IN LIQ) [2020] NZHC 1477

The trustees did not discharge the onus for summary judgment because plaintiffs' pleaded case could, with amendment, potentially allege that the trustees had underwritten or otherwise assumed obligations warranting trial; however, bringing those claims at this late stage after extensive prior litigation and a settlement made pursuit of the current proceedings an abuse of process. Therefore summary judgment was dismissed but both causes of action were struck out as an abuse of process under HCR r 15.1(1)(d).

Citation
[2020] NZHC 1477
Parties
First Plaintiff: Webster Farm Management Ltd; Second Plaintiff: David Basil Webster; Second Plaintiff: Frances Kim Webster; First Defendant: Dargaville Farms Ltd (in liquidation); Second Defendant (trustee of the Li Liang Ren Family Trust): Jianghua Han; Second Defendant (trustee of the Li Liang Ren Family Trust): Kevin John Marsh; Second Defendant (trustee of the Li Liang Ren Family Trust): Richard Clive Pearson
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
29 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract Claim With Interlocutory Applications / High Court Judgment on Summary Judgment and Strike Out Applications (interlocutory)
Outcome
Application for summary judgment by second defendant trustees dismissed; application to strike out for no reasonable cause of action dismissed; application to strike out for abuse of process under HCR r 15.1(1)(d) granted; causes of action struck out as an abuse of process.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Abuse of Process (henderson Principle), Guarantee/underwriting Obligations, Nomination/assignment, Management Agreement, Supply Contract
Contract Law Civil Procedure Insolvency Law Summary Judgment Strike Out Abuse of Process (henderson Principle) Guarantee/underwriting Obligations Nomination/assignment +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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Webster Farm Management Ltd

First Plaintiff

David Basil Webster

Second Plaintiff

Frances Kim Webster

Second Plaintiff

Dargaville Farms Ltd (in liquidation)

First Defendant

Jianghua Han

Second Defendant (trustee of the Li Liang Ren Family Trust)

Kevin John Marsh

Second Defendant (trustee of the Li Liang Ren Family Trust)

Richard Clive Pearson

Second Defendant (trustee of the Li Liang Ren Family Trust)

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract Claim With Interlocutory Applications / High Court Judgment on Summary Judgment and Strike Out Applications (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trustees were contractually liable under the management agreement
  2. 2 Whether the trustees were contractually liable for maize supply invoices
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment was appropriate under HCR r 12.2(2)

Ratio Decidendi

The trustees did not discharge the onus for summary judgment because plaintiffs' pleaded case could, with amendment, potentially allege that the trustees had underwritten or otherwise assumed obligations warranting trial; however, bringing those claims at this late stage after extensive prior litigation and a settlement made pursuit of the current proceedings an abuse of process. Therefore summary judgment was dismissed but both causes of action were struck out as an abuse of process under HCR r 15.1(1)(d).

Court Disposition

Application for summary judgment by second defendant trustees dismissed; application to strike out for no reasonable cause of action dismissed; application to strike out for abuse of process under HCR r 15.1(1)(d) granted; causes of action struck out as an abuse of process.

Orders

  • Both causes of action in the statement of claim struck out pursuant to High Court Rules 2016 r 15.1(1)(d) (abuse of process)
  • Second defendant trustees' application for summary judgment dismissed