18 Nov 2021
Summary judgment was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of showing the first defendant had no defence; the evidence contained an inconsistency between the signed contracts naming the individual and invoices and other dealings pointing to the company, creating a real issue to be tried.
17 May 2018
On the evidence the second defendant breached duties of care in supervising and carrying out the building works causing quantified losses, and he converted cedar cladding that had become the plaintiffs' property; the oral personal guarantee was unenforceable under the Property Law Act 2007 and was not relied on, therefore judgment was awarded to the plaintiffs against the second defendant for the quantified sums.
5 Jun 2008
Leave to appeal was refused because two courts had already decided liability against the appellant, the appellant's affidavit evidence was vague, lacking specificity and belated in raising the missing documentation defence, compelling inferences drawn from contemporaneous evidence justified rejection of that defence on affidavits, and the threshold for a second appeal was not met.