Copland v Goodwin - [2012] NZHC 3211

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

CIV-2004-412-000346 [2012] NZHC 3211

BETWEEN BRIAN STEWART COPLAND Plaintiff

ANDWAYNE ERNEST GOODWIN Defendant

Hearing: 6 November 2012 (Heard at Dunedin)

Appearances: T J Shiels for Defendant/Applicant
J C D Guest and C S N Gardner for Plaintiff/Respondent

Judgment: 30 November 2012

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE OSBORNE [as to application to set aside judgment]

Introduction

[1] The defendant, Mr Goodwin, applies to set aside a judgment entered, on his own admission, on 11 October 2006. In 2010 he failed on an application to have the judgment set aside under r 15.16(5) High Court Rules. Mr Goodwin now, instead, invokes the Court’s inherent jurisdiction. He asserts that there would be a miscarriage of justice if the judgment is not set aside. He says that Mr Copland defaulted on terms of the settlement which gave rise to the judgment on admission.

The history

The 2006 settlement agreement

[2] From September 2000 until October 2001 Mr Copland made a number of investments with a company controlled by Mr Goodwin. The company failed and

COPLAND V GOODWIN HC DUN CIV-2004-412-000346 [30 November 2012]

did not repay Mr Copland. Mr Copland sued the company and Mr Goodwin for the

$1,131,119.08 he had lost.

[3] After an unsuccessful summary judgment application, the proceeding was to have come to trial in May 2006. Instead, the parties reached a settlement agreement.

[4] Mr Goodwin’s company joined in the settlement memorandum. The company undertook to pay Mr Copland US$465,000 by 29 September 2006. Mr Goodwin and the company agreed to pay an additional NZ$30,000 towards Mr Copland’s costs by 31 August 2006.

[5] Mr Goodwin had been concerned about an article which had appeared on a website about his dealings with Mr Copland. The parties agreed in the settlement memorandum (in what I will call the “removal requirement”) that:

The Plaintiff [Mr Copland] will cause the present reference to the Defendant [Mr Goodwin] on the website of [name of the website deleted for the purposes of this judgment] together with all accompanying documents to be removed ~~immediately~~ as soon as reasonably practicable.

[6] In Court, on 1 May 2006, counsel advised Hansen J of the settlement. His Honour adjourned the proceeding for implementation of the settlement. In doing so, his Honour noted:

Counsel assured the Court that there will be no questions arising as to liability and quantum if the settlement agreement stalls.

[7] Mr Goodwin executed an admission of claim including in relation to the US$465,000. It was agreed by the memorandum that the admission would be held by Mr Copland’s counsel on an undertaking not to file the admission unless Mr Copland and the company defaulted on their settlement obligations.

[8] Neither the company nor Mr Goodwin subsequently paid the required settlement sums.

The judgment of 11 October 2006

[9] The Court entered judgment for Mr Copland on Mr Goodwin’s admission on

11 October 2006.

[10] Through subsequent enforcement proceedings, Mr Copland has recovered part of 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.

Continue reading Copland v Goodwin

Details

AGLC: Copland v Goodwin [2012] NZHC 3211
Case: [2012] NZHC 3211
Decision Date: 30 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Copland v Goodwin, the defendant, Mr Goodwin, sought to set aside a judgment entered against him on 11 October 2006. The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether the interests of justice required setting aside the judgment and whether Mr Goodwin's delay in seeking to set aside the judgment was justifiable. The court considered the principles of the inherent jurisdiction, the relevance of delay, and the potential prejudice to Mr Copland if the judgment were set aside. The court found that the removal requirement was not as crucial as the parties had led the court to believe, and Mr Goodwin's delay in pursuing the application to set aside the judgment was unreasonable. Additionally, setting aside the judgment would cause prejudice to Mr Copland. The court ultimately dismissed Mr Goodwin's application to set aside the judgment.

Orders