28 Jul 2023
Although there is reason to believe the plaintiff may be unable to meet an adverse costs order, on balance the plaintiff's claim to a joint equitable interest in the property is tenable and the relationship property issues require resolution at trial; therefore it is not just to order security for costs and the application is dismissed.
11 Jul 2023
Plaintiffs failed to produce cogent evidence of any agreement to extend the two loans such that there was no serious question to be tried; the affidavits and signed loan documents demonstrate no agreed extension, and the balance of convenience and interests of justice favor allowing the lender to exercise contractual rights, therefore the interim injunction was declined.
8 Sept 2020
Contemporary records (meeting minutes and emails) and the parties' repeated acknowledgements of owing the money established that the appellants had no reasonably arguable defence that the loans were to HTE Holdings Ltd or the Halloran Family Trust; exclusion or admission of late affidavits would not have altered that conclusion; appeal dismissed and summary judgment in favour of respondent affirmed.
2 Nov 2018
The District Court judge's factual finding that respondent advanced amounts totalling $58,880 to appellant was supported by documentary material and admissions; the judge was entitled to prefer respondent's credibility over appellant's conflicting account; applications to adduce additional evidence on appeal were inappropriate or lacked special reasons; no arguable prejudice from late briefs was shown; and the fresh statutory argument under the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act was out of time and not supported by evidence, so the appeal is dismissed and the District Court's judgment…
4 Dec 2017
The court found satisfactory admissible evidence that a specific portion of the loan remained unpaid and entered judgment for $39,716.04; the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the balance of claimed franchise and advertising levies and stock charges, and the defendants' counterclaim and factual disputes warranted further hearing and a timetable for additional evidence.
26 Apr 2017
On the evidential record the advances were made personally by Mr and Mrs Warin (not by the trusts), the advances were individual payments recoverable by each lender, the advances were repayable on demand, and the defendant failed to provide sufficient evidential foundation to raise an arguable defence; accordingly summary judgment was entered for the plaintiffs for the specified amounts with interest.
28 Oct 2016
Evidence established a strong prima facie case of a $21,000 loan repayable on sale and the respondent's non‑response and impending settlement permitted an inference of intent to defeat repayment; that met the required standard on an ex parte interim application and justified making the charging order in terms of the applicant's draft order.
16 Jun 2016
The Court accepted the plaintiff's and the defendant's mother's evidence over the defendant's, finding the four advances were personal loans by the plaintiff to the defendant repayable from the defendant's immigration deposit; accordingly judgment was entered for 40,000 euros converted to NZD at the judgment date with interest from filing and costs on a 2B basis.
12 Apr 2016
The entire agreement clause was given conclusive effect in relation to alleged pre-contractual representations given the parties' comparable commercial sophistication and legal advice; internal management profit and loss reports were not 'the financial statements of the company' and thus fell to the less stringent part of clause 9.1(e) so no breach established as to the stock/WIP error; vendor breached clause 9.1(e) by representing nearly $800,000 of confirmed orders when only about $565,000 met the vendor's own definition of confirmed orders, but no proven loss flowed from that breach; vendo…
13 Oct 2015
Summary judgment declined because there is a genuine, determinative conflict of fact about the repayment terms (and related estoppel argument) that requires credibility findings and a full hearing; the dispute is not limited to quantum and therefore is not suitable for summary disposal.