IRVINE AND ORS V WILSON AND ORS SC 117/2009

IRVINE AND ORS V WILSON AND ORS SC 117/2009

The application for leave was dismissed because the proposed grounds did not raise arguable questions of law of general or commercial significance nor meet the interests of justice threshold: the trustee liability point did not raise the governing principles but only whether they applied, and it was not arguable that breaches of the shareholders' agreement or Companies Act non‑compliance prevented entering into or enforcing the deed of termination.

Citation
SC 117/2009
Parties
First Applicant: Johnathan Brian Irvine; Second Applicant: Felicity Jane Irvine; Third Applicant: Timothy Malcolm Irvine; First Respondent: John Douglas Wilson; Second Respondent: Adele Joy Wilson; Third Respondent: Tracey Michelle White
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
18 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court / Application for Leave to Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Shareholders' Agreement, Deed of Termination, Trustees' Personal Liability, Companies Act 1993 Compliance, Leave to Appeal
Contract Company Law Trusts Civil Procedure Commercial Law Summary Judgment Shareholders' Agreement Deed of Termination +3 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johnathan Brian Irvine

First Applicant

Felicity Jane Irvine

Second Applicant

Timothy Malcolm Irvine

Third Applicant

John Douglas Wilson

First Respondent

Adele Joy Wilson

Second Respondent

Tracey Michelle White

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court / Application for Leave to Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second and third applicants (trustees) are personally liable under the summary judgment
  2. 2 Whether breaches of shareholders' agreement and alleged non‑compliance with the Companies Act 1993 vitiated the deed of termination and prevented its enforcement

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave was dismissed because the proposed grounds did not raise arguable questions of law of general or commercial significance nor meet the interests of justice threshold: the trustee liability point did not raise the governing principles but only whether they applied, and it was not arguable that breaches of the shareholders' agreement or Companies Act non‑compliance prevented entering into or enforcing the deed of termination.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused
  • Costs awarded to the Wilsons: $2500