Bannock v Monaco Management Limited

[2016] NZHC 2072

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CIV-2013-409-1701 [2016] NZHC 2072

BETWEEN

MICHAEL WILLIAM BANNOCK AND

ANNE MARGARET BANNOCK AND OXFORD STREET TRUSTEES (2010) LIMITED AND THE OTHER PLAINTIFFS LISTED IN SCHEDULE 1

TO THE STATEMENT OF CLAIM Plaintiffs

AND

MONACO MANAGEMENT LIMITED First Defendant

AND

MONACO VILLAGE LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION AND RECEIVERSHIP) Second Defendant

AND

SCOTT PATRICK SANDERS Third Defendant

Hearing:	1 September 2016
Appearances:	P G Skelton QC and S M Thompson for Plaintiffs Q M Hay and A D Marsh for First and Third Defendants
Judgment:	1 September 2016

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

[1]      Given the time constraints between hearing submissions on admissibility of evidence yesterday and commencing evidence today, I make the following rulings on the admissibility of evidence of the witnesses to be called today:

(a)       Plaintiff 35 – Riddell, the last sentence of paragraph 17 and all of paragraph 27 are ruled admissible, as is the statement at the end of

paragraph 6 in his reply brief.

BANNOCK, BANNOCK AND OXFORD STREET TRUSTEES (2010) LIMITED AND ORS v MONACO MANAGEMENT LIMITED [2016] NZHC 2072 [1 September 2016]

(b)Plaintiff  16  –  Henriette  Dobson,  paragraphs  33,  34  and  36  are admissible.

(c)       Plaintiff 30 – Donald McLeod, paragraphs 16 and 19 are admissible.

Paragraph 17 is ruled inadmissible as not relevant.

(d)Plaintiff 25 – Neil Johnstone – paragraph 26 is ruled inadmissible as irrelevant.   Paragraph 27, the last two sentences are inadmissible as irrelevant but the balance is admissible.  In relation to the reply brief, the last line of paragraph 15 is admissible as is paragraphs 16 to 20, given that they respond to a part of Mr Sanders’ evidence which is not challenged.

(e)       Plaintiff 27 – Stuart Keall – paragraphs 26 and 27 are admissible.

(f)      Plaintiff 40 – Susan Taylor – paragraph 15 is ruled inadmissible, as is paragraph 31 on the basis of irrelevancy.  Paragraphs 40, 41 and 42, are admissible, as is the first sentence of paragraph 46, but the balance (paragraphs 43, 44, 45 and the last sentence of paragraph 46) are ruled inadmissible on the basis of irrelevancy.

[2]      A  judgment  setting  out  my  rulings  on  the  totality  of  the  admissibility challenges and my reasons for them, will issue shortly

Solicitors:

P G Skelton QC, Barrister, Auckland

Q M Hay, Barrister, Wellington
GCA Lawyers, Christchurch

Saunders Robinson Brown, Christchurch