12 Aug 2022
There are substantial and genuine factual conflicts about the nature of the transactions, the purchase price, and the existence and effect of alleged loan documents that cannot be resolved in the summary statutory demand proceeding on affidavit evidence alone; accordingly the statutory demands are set aside under s 290(4)(a).
13 Apr 2022
Summary judgment was dismissed because the plaintiff's sole claim is founded on loan agreements signed after the advances; material factual issues exist as to whether those agreements reflect the parties' contemporaneous intention, and there is credible evidence raising real doubt (possible sham, duress, misleading affidavit evidence, unworkable terms and lack of implementation) such that the defendant has a tenable defence and a full hearing is required.
7 Jul 2021
The settlement agreement and deed were valid and subsumed prior loan arrangements; the defendant defaulted by failing to make the agreed instalment, there was no arguable defence and no appearance, therefore summary judgment is entered for the plaintiff for the outstanding amount plus contractual/statutory interest and agreed solicitor/client costs and disbursements.
30 Sept 2019
The appeal succeeds because the appellant raised a tenable defence that the Shareholding Agreement, when read with the contemporaneous emails, may have subsumed or discharged the earlier personal loan agreements and the newly admitted email evidence provided special reasons for its admission; the factual and contractual issues require full factual testing and therefore the matter was unsuitable for summary judgment and must be remitted for a full hearing.
19 Nov 2018
Plaintiff established on summary judgment that the October 2017 loans and the 16 October 2017 guarantee were enforceable, in default and owing $1,012,300.05; the contractual no set-off clauses do not preclude a defendant from seeking statutory avoidance of contracts under the Fair Trading Act but the defendant's case to obtain such relief was not reasonably arguable on the evidence; the franchise fee claims lacked sufficient evidential proof and were dismissed; equitable set-off defences were barred by the no set-off clauses and/or were unarguable on the facts.
2 Aug 2018
Court found defendants' evidence of additional cash payments implausible and rejected it; bank records and pattern of regular New Zealand dollar payments versus irregular yuan-equivalent amounts established allocation: regular round NZ$ deposits credited to the NZ loan and irregular deposits converted to round yuan amounts credited to the Chinese loans; the principal of the first Chinese loan (100,000 yuan) was due 1 February 2010 and is statute-barred, but interest accruing after 30 September 2010 remains claimable; expert accountant's calculations were accepted subject to deduction of statu…
1 May 2015
The emails authorised the appellant to take steps to avoid a mortgagee sale and referred to total costs 'possibly up to $50,000', but did not create a certain contract obliging the respondent to pay the appellant a $50,000 success fee; subsequent conduct and loan documents indicated allocation of $20,000 and the appellant failed to provide adequate evidential foundation for a quantum meruit recovery, so the appeal is dismissed.
19 Dec 2013
The plaintiffs proved on contemporaneous documents and bank records that the advances were made and received and were prima facie repayable on demand; the defendant's asserted conditional repayment on sale, bonus characterization, non-receipt and statutory defence under the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act were not reasonably arguable on the evidence; accordingly summary judgment was appropriate for the amounts claimed with interest where contractually provided and statutory or Judicature Act interest where applicable.
6 Aug 2012
Because the plaintiff was entitled under clause 16.8 of the loan agreements to recover costs and the defendants did not dispute the solicitor's affidavit calculations, the court awarded the specified costs and disbursements to the plaintiff.
30 Nov 2010
The December 2009 discussions did not create a binding contract releasing defendants from liability; the plaintiff was entitled to amend pleadings; clause 15.9 of the loan agreement precluded the defendants' estoppel argument based on delay and course of dealing; acceleration under the February 2010 agreement could not be relied on without a s119 notice but plaintiff confined its claim to amounts due under the 2007 agreement; therefore there was no arguable defence to repayment of $8,528,743.28 and summary judgment was granted for that sum with interest and solicitor-client costs.