Coffey v Walker - [2020] NZHC 605

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2019-404-857

[2020] NZHC 605

BETWEEN
PAUL CORNEL COFFEY and WILLIS

STREET TRUSTEE SERVICES LIMITED
as trustees of the PC COFFEY TRUST Plaintiffs

AND

MARK ALAN WALKER as trustee of the WYNSFIELD FAMILY TRUST

Defendant

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

GE Slevin for the Plaintiffs

DJ Clark & J Collett for the Defendant

Judgment:

23 March 2020

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE SMITH

This judgment was delivered by me on 23 March 2020 at 2.30pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors / Counsel:
Grant Slevin, Barrister, Christchurch Wilson McKay, Auckland

Coffey v Walker [2020] NZHC 605 [23 March 2020]

[1] On 31 October 2019 I gave judgment refusing an application by the plaintiffs for summary judgment (the judgment).1 In the judgment, I held that the plaintiffs had failed to show that the defendant’s defence based on cancellation of the relevant contract in 2009 was beyond reasonable argument.

[2] The plaintiffs now apply for leave to appeal against the judgment, under s 56(3) of the Senior Courts Act 2016 (the Act). The application for leave is opposed by the defendant.

[3] The parties were content for me to deal with the leave application on the papers, and I have received written submissions from both sides.

[4]I now give judgment on the plaintiffs’ leave application.

Applications for leave to appeal against interlocutory decisions in the High Court

– legal principles

[5]Section 56 of the Act materially provides:

56 Jurisdiction

…

(3)No appeal, except an appeal under subsection (4), lies from any order or decision of the High Court made on an interlocutory application in respect of any civil proceeding unless leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal is given by the High Court on application made within 20 working days after the date of that order or decision or within any further time that the High Court may allow.

…

(5)If the High Court refuses leave to appeal under subsection (3), the Court of Appeal may grant that leave on application made to the Court of Appeal within 20 working days after the date of the refusal of leave by the High Court.

(6)If leave to appeal under subsection (3) or (5) is refused in respect of an order or a decision of the High Court made on an interlocutory application, nothing in this section prevents any point raised in the application for leave to appeal from being raised in an appeal against the substantive High Court decision.

1 Coffey v Walker [2019] NZHC 2795.

[6] The principles to be applied on applications under ss 56(3) and (5) of the Act were discussed by the Court of Appeal in Ngai Te Hapu Inc v Bay of Plenty Regional Council.2 The Court of Appeal observed that s 56(3) was intended to reduce the volume of appeals to the Court of Appeal from interlocutory decisions in the High…

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 Coffey v Walker

Details

AGLC: Coffey v Walker [2020] NZHC 605
Case: [2020] NZHC 605
Decision Date: 23 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Coffey v Walker involved an application for leave to appeal an interlocutory decision made by Associate Judge Smith. The plaintiffs, Paul Cornel Coffey and Willis Street Trustee Services Limited as trustees of the PC Coffey Trust, sought leave to appeal against the decision that denied their application for summary judgment. The defendant, Mark Alan Walker as trustee of the Wynsfield Family Trust, opposed the application.

The legal issues in this case revolved around the principles for granting leave to appeal interlocutory decisions in the High Court, as outlined in section 56 of the Senior Courts Act 2016. The Court of Appeal in Ngai Te Hapu Inc v Bay of Plenty Regional Council had previously outlined the principles to be applied when deciding whether to grant leave, emphasizing the importance of the significance or implications of an arguable error of fact or law. The Court of Appeal in Fairway Holdings Ltd v McCullagh further elaborated on these principles, noting that leave should only be granted if the appeal is of sufficient importance and the interests of justice warrant further consideration by the Court of Appeal.

Associate Judge Smith considered the arguments presented by both parties and concluded that the issue of cancellation was sufficiently raised and was capable of bona fide and serious argument. The judge found that the appeal could potentially be dispositive of the case and was important to both parties. Additionally, the judge believed that the overall justice of the situation favoured allowing the plaintiffs to bring the appeal. The further delay caused by the appeal was not deemed significant, and the Court's filtering role was not considered to have a significant impact in this case.

As a result, Associate Judge Smith granted the plaintiffs' application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The appeal was to be commenced within 10 working days, and the plaintiffs were awarded costs on the leave application, plus disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.

Orders