Beech v Patterson & Patterson Limited t/a MTF Cambridge - [2019] NZHC 1466

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CIV 2019-419-0046

[2019] NZHC 1466

BETWEEN ANTHONY NGARANGI DANELL BEECH
Appellant

AND

PATTERSON & PATTERSON LIMITED (t/a MTF CAMBRIDGE)

Respondent

Hearing: 24 June 2019

Appearances:

P V Cornegé for the appellant A O’Connor for the respondent

Judgment:

26 June 2019

JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

This judgment is delivered by me on 26 June 2019 at 3.00 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

.....................................................
Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Counsel/Solicitors:
P V Cornegé, Barrister, Hamilton Iorns & Co, Wellington

BEECH v PATTERSON & PATTERSON LTD [2019] NZHC 1466 [26 June 2019]

[1] The appellant, Mr Beech, appeals against the decision of Judge A S Menzies in the District Court at Hamilton on 17 January 2019, granting the relief sought by the respondent, MTF Cambridge, as admitted by Mr Beech.1 (Execution was stayed for 28 days to permit Mr Beech to raise any claim as may affect the judgment. None was.)

[2] Judge Menzies earlier dismissed MTF Cambridge’s summary judgment application to the same ends, because it could not establish Mr Beech had no defence.2 Although his statement of defence made no mention of them, Mr Beech’s notice of opposition additionally asserted frustration, contractual mistake and estoppel. The Judge referred to the defence being “framed as contractual mistake and/or estoppel”.3

[3] The Judge concluded “[t]he defendant may need to reflect on whether the defendant’s pleadings need amendment to raise the issues currently framed as defences as a set off and/or counterclaim”.4 No amendment was made. Mr Beech’s counsel, Mark Jepson, appears to have taken the view for the subsequent trial (and in written submissions on this appeal), the defence was “properly pleaded” in that the defence asserted a representation, prospectively qualifying to ground an estoppel, to which MTF Cambridge had not replied.

[4] At the subsequent trial, the Judge raised the absence of any amendment. Mr Jepson ultimately responded:

… if you’re of the view … that [estoppel] is an affirmative defence and for the defendant to raise it … as a defence that it must be pleaded, then counsel would seek an adjournment of this hearing.

MTF Cambridge’s counsel, Alwyn O’Connor, opposed adjournment on grounds the Judge already had brought prospective amendment to the defendant’s attention. Without hearing further from Mr Jepson, the Judge ruled the adjournment application was declined as “affirmative matters such as estoppel … need to be pleaded”, and “[t]he matter was fairly and squarely raised in the summary judgment decision”.5

1      Minute dated 17 January 2019.
2      Patterson & Patterson Ltd v Beech [2018] NZDC 21556 at [18].
3 At [6].
4 At [19].
5      Patterson & Patterson Ltd v Beech [2019] NZDC 642 at [16] and [17].

Legal issues

[5] Rule 5.50 of the District Court Rules 2014 (“DCR”), titled “Requirements of statement of defence”, stipulates at (4) “[a]n affirmative defence must be pleaded”. An ‘affirmative defence’ relies on material outside the admissions and denials of…

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 Beech v Patterson & Patterson Limited t/a MTF Cambridge 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: [2019] NZHC 1466
Decision Date: 26 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Beech v Patterson & Patterson Limited t/a MTF Cambridge, the appellant, Mr Beech, appealed against the decision of Judge A S Menzies in the District Court at Hamilton. The District Court had granted relief sought by the respondent, MTF Cambridge, which Mr Beech had admitted. The case involved a dispute over an insurance obligation, where Mr Beech argued against the enforcement of a judgment. The District Court had earlier dismissed a summary judgment application by MTF Cambridge, as it could not establish Mr Beech had no defence. The case was heard on 24 June 2019 and the judgment was delivered on 26 June 2019.

The legal issues centred around whether the District Court had erred in refusing to grant an adjournment for Mr Beech to amend his pleadings. The court needed to determine if estoppel, which Mr Beech sought to assert as a defence, qualified as an affirmative defence that needed to be specifically pleaded. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the District Court had exercised its discretion correctly in declining to grant an adjournment for the purpose of allowing the amendment of pleadings.

The High Court concluded that the District Court had not erred in refusing to grant an adjournment. The court found that the Judge's decision was within his discretion and not plainly wrong. The High Court emphasised that it is the responsibility of counsel, not the judge, to ensure their clients' cases are ready for trial. The court held that the District Court's refusal was a considered response to the position as it unfolded before him, and thus, the High Court would not interfere.

The appeal was dismissed, and MTF Cambridge was granted 2B costs and disbursements. If the parties could not agree on the costs, they were to file and serve short memoranda within specified timeframes for further determination.

Orders