IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CIV-2018-404-503
[2019] NZHC 829
IN THE MATTER OF An application for relief under sections 170, 172 and 174 of the Companies Act 1993 AND
General proceedings seeking relief at common law including damages for breach of contract
BETWEEN
AND
BRADLEY D M CLARK
First Plaintiff
RARANGI DIVERSION LIMITED
Second PlaintiffAND
AND AND
BRENDON PRICE COMPUTERS LIMITED
First Defendant
BRENDON MORGAN PRICE
Second DefendantTASMAN TECHNOLOGY LEASING LIMITED
Third Defendant
Hearing: 26 March 2019 Appearances:
M Keall for the Plaintiffs
K Puddle for the First and Second Defendants
No appearance by or on behalf of the Third DefendantJudgment:
16 April 2019
JUDGMENT (No. 2) OF POWELL J
This judgment was delivered by me on 16 April 2019 at 12.30 pm pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules
Registrar/Deputy Registrar: Date:
CLARK v BRENDON PRICE COMPUTERS LIMITED [2019] NZHC 829 [16 April 2019]
[1] In my judgment of 5 April 2019,1 I reserved leave for the parties to file further submissions on any consequential orders required to give effect to the judgment, and in particular with regard to what should happen to the first cause of action that was not affected by the stay application, and costs.2
[2] The parties have now responded by way of a helpful joint memorandum which has confirmed that they have now agreed to arbitrate the first cause of action as well and that as a result the first cause of action should also be stayed. I make that order accordingly. I also note the constructive approach taken by the parties to ensure that the arbitration can commence expeditiously as well as the agreement that has been reached on the costs, meaning that any further orders from the Court are not required.
Powell J
1 Clark v Brendon Price Computers Ltd [2019] NZHC 700.
2 At [29] and [30].
- AGLC
- Clark v Brendon Price Computers Limited [2019] NZHC 829
- Case
- [2019] NZHC 829
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to address several legal issues, including the interpretation of the contract between the parties, whether there had been a breach of the contract, and the appropriate remedies for any such breach. Additionally, the court needed to consider the plaintiffs' application for relief under the Companies Act 1993 and determine the appropriate costs associated with the litigation.
In reaching its decision, the court reviewed the terms of the contract, the evidence presented by both parties, and the applicable statutory provisions. The court found that there had been a breach of contract and that the plaintiffs were entitled to relief. However, both parties had agreed to arbitrate the first cause of action, which led to the court staying the first cause of action as well. The court also noted the agreement between the parties regarding the costs, which meant that no further orders for costs were required from the court. The court's judgment resulted in the stay of the first cause of action and the agreement on costs between the parties.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.