Bright v Wolfbrook Residential Limited - [2025] NZHC 1946

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2023-485-795

[2025] NZHC 1946

BETWEEN
PAMELA ALISON BRIGHT

Plaintiff

AND

WOLFBROOK RESIDENTIAL LIMITED

First Defendant

STEVEN CAVELL BROOKS
Second Defendant

JAMES OWEN COONEY

Third Defendant

Hearing: 3 July 2025

Appearances:

M Freeman and G Dewar for Plaintiff

S Campbell and C Martin for Defendants

Judgment:

15 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE SKELTON

[Joinder]

[1] The plaintiff, Pamela Bright, applies for an order under rr 4.56 and 4.3 of the High Court Rules 2016 to join Wolfbrook Property Group Ltd (Wolfbrook Property) as an alternative first defendant to Wolfbrook Residential Ltd (Wolfbrook Residential). The defendants oppose the application.

[2] For the reasons set out below, I find that the effective and efficient administration of this proceeding requires joinder of Wolfbrook Property.

BRIGHT v WOLFBROOK RESIDENTIAL LIMITED [2025] NZHC 1946 [15 July 2025]

The claims

[3] Ms Bright claims that Wolfbrook Residential, which is part of the group of companies known as the Wolfbrook Property Group, through its agent, Bill Riding, approached her about whether she would sell her property at 58 Martin Street, Upper Hutt as part of a property development venture. Wolfbrook Residential then used Fix My Property Ltd (FMP) as its agent for the purchase. Ms Bright and FMP executed the contract for sale and purchase of the property on 16 December 2021. The contract became unconditional on 9 March 2022. The settlement date was 9 November 2022.

[4] Ms Bright contends that, in reliance on the contract, she entered into another contract to purchase a property at 56 McLeod Street, Upper Hutt for $938,000, which settled on 27 April 2022. Ms Bright arranged bridging finance of $918,000 until the settlement of the sale of 58 Martin Street. FMP did not settle the purchase of 58 Martin Street on 9 November 2022 and has not taken any steps to settle the purchase or otherwise perform the contract. This is despite Ms Bright issuing a settlement notice and a statutory demand for default interest for late settlement. FMP was placed into liquidation by resolution of its shareholders on 30 June 2023. Ms Bright cancelled the contract with FMP on 27 November 2023.

[5]Ms Bright has sued the defendants, pleading the following causes of action:

(a)First, Ms Bright claims that Wolfbrook Residential as the principal purchaser (FMP acting as its agent) repudiated the contract and is liable for breach of contract.

(b)Second and alternatively, Ms Bright claims that Wolfbrook Residential engaged in unconscionable conduct under ss 7 and 8, and misleading and deceptive conduct under s 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986. In particular, it was represented that she would be selling to Wolfbrook Residential (a resourced and reputable company) rather than FMP (a company with no assets). She alleges FMP was used as purchaser as a device to protect Wolfbrook Residential from liability if it chose not to settle the purchase of the property.

(c)Third, Ms Bright says that the…

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 Bright v Wolfbrook Residential 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: [2025] NZHC 1946
Decision Date: 15 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Pamela Bright commenced proceedings against Wolfbrook Residential Limited and two other defendants, seeking damages for alleged breaches of contract, and for unconscionable and misleading and deceptive conduct. Ms Bright sought to join Wolfbrook Property Group Limited as an alternative first defendant, to address the uncertainty as to which entity was the appropriate defendant. The defendants opposed the application. The court found that the effective and efficient administration of the proceeding required joinder of Wolfbrook Property. The court held that either Wolfbrook Property ought to have been joined to the proceeding, or its presence before the court may be necessary to adjudicate on and settle all questions involved in the proceeding. The court held that the joinder application should be allowed, and that Ms Bright was entitled to costs on a 2B basis and reasonable disbursements. The court urged the parties to take a more cooperative approach to the litigation to advance the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of the proceeding.

Orders