SYNLAIT MILK LIMITED v NEW ZEALAND INDUSTRIAL PARK LIMITED [2019] NZSC 117 [29 October 2019]
The Court granted leave to appeal, ordered substitution of Synlait Milk Ltd for Stonehill Trustee Ltd by consent, deferred determination of the application to adduce further evidence until the hearing of the appeal, and allowed respondents to file affidavits in response by a specified date.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] NZSC 117
- Parties
- Applicant: Synlait Milk Limited; Respondent: New Zealand Industrial Park Limited; Respondent: Ye Qing
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 29 October 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal to Supreme Court / Leave to Appeal Granted; Further Evidence Application Deferred; Hearing Pending
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted; substitution of applicant ordered; application to adduce further evidence deferred to hearing; respondents permitted to file affidavits in response by specified date
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Admission of Further Evidence, Substitution of Parties, Procedural Directions
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Synlait Milk Limited
Applicant
New Zealand Industrial Park Limited
Respondent
Ye Qing
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal to Supreme Court / Leave to Appeal Granted; Further Evidence Application Deferred; Hearing Pending
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to reverse the High Court
- 2 Whether Synlait may adduce further evidence on appeal
- 3 Whether substitution of the applicant is appropriate
Ratio Decidendi
The Court granted leave to appeal, ordered substitution of Synlait Milk Ltd for Stonehill Trustee Ltd by consent, deferred determination of the application to adduce further evidence until the hearing of the appeal, and allowed respondents to file affidavits in response by a specified date.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted; substitution of applicant ordered; application to adduce further evidence deferred to hearing; respondents permitted to file affidavits in response by specified date
Orders
- By consent, Synlait Milk Ltd substituted for Stonehill Trustee Ltd as applicant subject to conditions in the joint memorandum of counsel dated 6 September 2019.
- Leave to appeal is granted to Synlait Milk Ltd.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
SYNLAIT MILK LIMITED v NEW ZEALAND INDUSTRIAL PARK LIMITED [2019] NZSC 117[29 October 2019]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI MANA NUISC 50/2019[2019] NZSC 117BETWEEN SYNLAIT MILK LIMITEDApplicantAND NEW ZEALAND INDUSTRIAL PARKLIMITEDFirst RespondentYE QINGSecond RespondentHearing: 21 October 2019Court: Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook and O'Regan JJCounsel: J G Miles QC and A J Horne for ApplicantA R Galbraith QC and D T Broadmore for RespondentsJudgment: 29 October 2019JUDGMENT OF THE COURTA By consent, an order is made substituting Synlait Milk Ltdfor Stonehill Trustee Ltd as applicant subject to theconditions set out in the joint memorandum of counsel dated6 September 2019.B Leave to appeal is granted to Synlait Milk Ltd as applicant(New Zealand Industrial Park Ltd v Stonehill Trustee Ltd[2019] NZCA 147).C The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal wascorrect to reverse the decision of the High Court (StonehillTrustee Ltd v New Zealand Industrial Park Ltd [2018] NZHC2938).D The application by Synlait Milk Ltd to adduce furtherevidence will be determined at or after the hearing of theappeal.E Leave is granted for the respondents to file an affidavit oraffidavits responding to the evidence that Synlait Milk Ltdseeks to adduce. Such affidavit or affidavits must be filed onor before 15 November 2019.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] The Court does not consider it appropriate to determine the application bySynlait Milk Ltd to adduce further evidence at this stage. However, the Courtrecognises that the respondents seek to adduce evidence in response to Synlait'sproposed new evidence. The respondents may file an application to adduce one ormore affidavits in response to Synlait's proposed evidence and the affidavitsthemselves. The Court will hear argument on both applications at the hearing anddetermine them at or after the hearing.[2] Counsel should make submissions on the alternative bases that:(a) leave is given to both parties to adduce new evidence; and(b) such leave is declined.[3] We direct the Registrar to amend the Court file by substituting Synlait MilkLtd for Stonehill Trustee Ltd as applicant (now appellant).Solicitors:MinterEllisonRuddWatts, Auckland for ApplicantBuddle Findlay, Auckland for Respondents