Advance Apiaries Limited v Waipunga Station Limited - [2017] NZHC 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

CIV 2016-454-120 [2017] NZHC 2009

BETWEEN
ADVANCE APIARIES LIMITED

Plaintiff

AND

WAIPUNGA STATION LIMITED Defendant

Hearing: 3 August 2017

Counsel:

N T Gray for Plaintiff
M V Smith for Defendant

Judgment:

22 August 2017

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE SMITH

[1] The plaintiff (Advance) applies for orders directing that liability be determined at a separate, preliminary trial, with quantum to be deferred for later consideration at a second trial. The application is opposed by the defendant (Waipunga).

Background

[2] In a minute of a case management conference convened on 25 May 2017 I

summarised the background of the dispute between the parties as follows:1

The plaintiff is an apiarist. It had a five year contract with the defendant, entered into on 2 September 2015, under which it was allowed access to the defendant’s land for the purpose of harvesting manuka honey on the land. There was a right to renew for a further 2 years.

The plaintiff was to have exclusive rights to the land and unlimited access, and in return it was to pay the defendant an annual rate of $3,000 plus GST, together with $500 plus GST towards tracking costs for the purpose of

1 Advance Apiaries Ltd v Waipunga Station Ltd HC Palmerston North CIV-2016-454-120,
25 May 2017 at [2]–[9].

ADVANCE APIARIES LIMITED v WAIPUNGA STATION LIMITED [2017] NZHC 2009 [22 August 2017]

allowing site access. The parties agreed that the agreement could only be terminated before the end of the five year term, by mutual agreement.

The defendant sent an email terminating the contract on 10 November 2016. With the termination letter, it forwarded a cheque for $10,000 to the plaintiff, which is said to have been in “full compensation”.

The plaintiff did not accept the termination, and it applied for a mandatory interlocutory injunction requiring the defendant to allow it access to the property, so that it could place hives on the land in accordance with the agreement.

The interlocutory injunction application was declined by Clark J in a judgment given on 20 December 2016. In giving the judgment, her Honour noted that the defendant accepted that it was in breach of the agreement.

The defendant filed a statement of defence on 27 January 2017. In the statement of defence it alleges that there were additional, oral, terms to the agreement between the parties. The oral terms were said to require the plaintiff to disclose to the defendant the quantity and quality of honey produced, and the cost of production, for each season, and to pay a fee to the defendant each season based on a review by the parties of the plaintiff’s disclosure relating to the previous season’s performance. The defendant also alleges that the parties agreed orally that the tracking carried out on the land by the plaintiff would be completed “to farm standard” where hive sites were sought in the defendant’s hill country.

The defendant pleads that, in breach of contract, the plaintiff…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Advance Apiaries Limited v Waipunga Station Limited and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2017] NZHC 2009
Decision Date: 22 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Advance Apiaries Limited sought orders for a preliminary trial on liability, with quantum issues deferred for a later hearing. Waipunga Station Limited opposed the application. Advance relied on the fact that it had a relatively straightforward case on liability, and that a quantum hearing would be best conducted after the land had been worked by an apiarist for the full term of the contract. Associate Judge Smith concluded that the Court should not accede to the application. The key issue in the case was the overlap between the liability and quantum issues, and the Court did not think that the issues would be discrete. Moreover, the Court concluded that the advantages of shortening the litigation did not outweigh the disadvantages of splitting the trials and deferring the quantum hearing for up to four years. The application was refused. Waipunga was entitled to costs, which were fixed on a 2B basis, with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.

Orders