WILFRIED BECKER V MAURICE CHARLES ANDERSON HC AK CIV-2010-488-0420

WILFRIED BECKER V MAURICE CHARLES ANDERSON HC AK CIV-2010-488-0420

Leave to amend the defendants' summary judgment application was granted and the plaintiffs were permitted to amend their statement of claim and file limited further evidence because the justice of the case required that the plaintiffs be given a fair opportunity to respond to new grounds and to address specific factual assertions; the court balanced prejudice and fairness and adjourned the summary judgment application to allow the parties to replead and file evidence.

Citation
openlaw-87821897_caaf_4f69_b49a_f36ff92cbb33.pdf
Parties
Plaintiff: Wilfried Becker; Plaintiff: Silvia Becker; First Defendant: Maurice Charles Anderson; Second Defendants: Roger Bell; Andrew Golightly; Wayne McKean; Stuart Spicer; Steve Wong (Webb Ross Johnson)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
18 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil (professional Negligence) / Application for Summary Judgment Preliminary Matters Hearing; Application Adjourned to Defended Hearing
Outcome
Application for summary judgment adjourned; leave granted to second defendants to amend their application; plaintiffs permitted to file amended pleadings and limited further affidavits; timetable and directions issued.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Conflict of Interest, Independent Legal Advice, Breach of Instructions, Amendment of Pleadings, Evidence and Affidavits
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Conflict of Interest Trusts and Bankruptcy Summary Judgment Independent Legal Advice Breach of Instructions Amendment of Pleadings +1 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wilfried Becker

Plaintiff

Silvia Becker

Plaintiff

Maurice Charles Anderson

First Defendant

Roger Bell; Andrew Golightly; Wayne McKean; Stuart Spicer; Steve Wong (Webb Ross Johnson)

Second Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil (professional Negligence) / Application for Summary Judgment Preliminary Matters Hearing; Application Adjourned to Defended Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second defendants had a conflict of interest
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs obtained independent legal advice
  3. 3 Whether a separate cause of action for breach of instructions is pleaded

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend the defendants' summary judgment application was granted and the plaintiffs were permitted to amend their statement of claim and file limited further evidence because the justice of the case required that the plaintiffs be given a fair opportunity to respond to new grounds and to address specific factual assertions; the court balanced prejudice and fairness and adjourned the summary judgment application to allow the parties to replead and file evidence.

Court Disposition

Application for summary judgment adjourned; leave granted to second defendants to amend their application; plaintiffs permitted to file amended pleadings and limited further affidavits; timetable and directions issued.

Orders

  • Second defendants granted leave to file an amended application for summary judgment
  • Plaintiffs to file and serve an amended statement of claim by 7 November 2011