Boyd v Brooks Homes Limited - [2025] NZHC 2701

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE

CIV-2025-425-8

[2025] NZHC 2701

UNDER the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017

IN THE MATTER

of an appeal against the decision of the Christchurch District Court

BETWEEN

TIMOTHY AYRE BOYD

Appellant

AND

BROOKS HOMES LIMITED

Respondent

Hearing: (On the papers)

Appearances:

T A Boyd – Appellant self-represented D J C Russ for Respondent

Judgment:

17 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE LESTER

BOYD v BROOKS HOMES LIMITED [2025] NZHC 2701 [17 September 2025]

[1] On 10 June 2025, directions were made for two issues to be resolved on the papers with submissions timetabled. The Registrar, however, has only just referred those submissions to me and I apologise to the parties for the delay in dealing with the outstanding matters.

[2] The two outstanding matters are whether Mr Boyd has paid the security for costs payable by him on his appeal; and Mr Boyd’s application to adduce additional evidence.

Security for costs

[3] On 17 March 2025, Associate Judge Paulsen directed that Mr Boyd must pay security for costs on his appeal on or before 31 March 2025.1 That payment was not made.

[4] Mr Boyd’s appeal is against a judgment Brooks Homes Limited (Brooks) obtained against him in the District Court for $164,008.94 (as at the date of the judgment).2 Interest continues to run from the date of judgment, 4 January 2025.

[5] Brooks’ contract with Mr Boyd and his partner, from whom Mr Boyd is separated, permitted Brooks to lodge a caveat over their property. A caveat was registered by Brooks on 2 August 2023. Mr Boyd sought a withdrawal of the caveat. In exchange for the withdrawal of caveat, $164,199.97 was agreed to be held on trust by Mr Boyd’s solicitors. This sum was agreed and paid in late November 2024.

[6]    Mr Russ, counsel for Brooks, has produced the memorandum filed in the District Court, seeking to quantify judgment. The components of the judgment sought are:
(a)$115,066.00      Principal sum
(b)$21,469.94        Interest to the date of the Court’s judgment
(c)$27,473.00        Indemnity costs (excluding GST)

1 Boyd v Brooks Homes Ltd HC Christchurch CIV-2025-425-8, 17 March 2025 at [5].
2 Brooks Homes Ltd v Boyd [2024] NZDC 158.

[7] The total judgment sum sought in Mr Russ’s memorandum is $164,008.94 as at 4 January 2025. I understand judgment has not been sealed because of Mr Boyd’s appeal. Mr Boyd submits that if his appeal is successful, Brooks will be owed substantially less, leaving more than enough money in trust to cover the required security for costs.

[8]Mr Boyd says the amount held in trust was based on $114,199.97 plus a further

$50,000 for costs including costs on the appeal, giving a total of $164,199.97.

[9] However, by the time the judgment sum was fixed, the amount in trust was all but exhausted by the judgment obtained by Brooks. There was an insufficient surplus funds held to serve as security, particularly…

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.

Continue reading Boyd v Brooks Homes Limited

Details

AGLC: Boyd v Brooks Homes Limited [2025] NZHC 2701
Case: [2025] NZHC 2701
Decision Date: 17 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Timothy Ayre Boyd (Mr Boyd) appealed against a decision of the Christchurch District Court. Brooks Homes Limited (Brooks) obtained a judgment against Mr Boyd for $164,008.94, and interest continues to accrue from the date of the judgment. The primary issues for the court were whether Mr Boyd had paid the security for costs payable on his appeal and whether he could adduce additional evidence.

Regarding the payment of security for costs, Mr Boyd was ordered to pay a specific amount by a certain date, but he did not comply with the order. The funds held in trust were intended to replace a caveat held by Brooks, and there were insufficient surplus funds to serve as security for costs. The court found that Mr Boyd had not paid the security and that his appeal was deemed abandoned. Mr Boyd's application to extend the time to pay security was also denied, as the court does not have the jurisdiction to reinstate an appeal that has been deemed abandoned.

As for the application to adduce additional evidence, the court found it unnecessary to address this issue because the appeal had already been abandoned. The court also noted that there was no good reason for Mr Boyd's failure to pay the security on time.

In conclusion, the court found in favour of Brooks Homes Limited on both issues. Brooks is entitled to costs on the appeal. If Brooks wishes to apply for indemnity costs, it must file a memorandum with supporting material within ten working days. If Brooks is content with costs on a 2B basis, the court will award costs to Brooks on that basis, together with disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.

Orders