Corrick v Silich

[2018] NZCA 221

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

 CA444/2017
 [2018] NZCA 221

BETWEEN

DAVID CORRICK First Appellant STEVEN MITCHELL Second Appellant DAVID PRALONG Third Appellant PAUL STENT Fourth Appellant MATTHEW WILCOCK Fifth Appellant

AND

ROBERT SILICH First Respondent CHRIS SNELSON Second Respondent GLENN MCCREADY Third Respondent FRANK PARKER Fourth Respondent BRETT EMENY Fifth Respondent DARRYL MCEVEDY Sixth Respondent ALISTAIR RUSSELL Seventh Respondent ALISTAIR SCOTT Eighth Respondent BRYAN LOCKIE Ninth Respondent DOUG MOULIN Tenth Respondent MICHAEL JENKINS Eleventh Respondent KEN MULGREW Twelfth Respondent BRIAN STEWART Thirteenth Respondent BLAIR O’BRIEN Fourteenth Respondent DARYL HONE Fifteenth Respondent ANDREW GORMLIE Sixteenth Respondent

Hearing:	16 May 2018
Court:	Asher, Venning and Mander JJ
Counsel:	D Zhang and E Tie for First to Fifth Appellants D L Marriott for First to Fifth Respondents
Judgment:	29 June 2018 at 10 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal against the substantive judgment is dismissed.

BThe appeal against the costs judgment is allowed and the order for increased costs of 50 per cent is set aside.  The costs award in the High Court is otherwise unaffected. 

CThe appellants are jointly and severally liable to pay the respondents one set of costs for a standard appeal on a band A basis and usual disbursements.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Asher J)

Table of Contents

Para No

Introduction
Background
The issues

Was a contract created between the Corrick Group and the Syndicate?

The High Court judgment
The emails relating to the offer of the Corrick Group of 19 December 2014
Agency
Offer and acceptance
No acceptance in the required form
Later communications
Conclusion

The other claims
Costs appeal
Result

[1]
[2]
[14]

[15]
[15]

[17]
[28]
[33]
[42]
[45]
[52]
[55]
[58]
[77]

Introduction

1. This appeal concerns the perennial question of whether a contract was formed.  The appellants and respondents are all syndicate members who owned an aircraft.  The appellant group claims that the syndicate agreed to sell the aircraft to them.  Other members of the syndicate, the respondents, dispute that proposition.  They prevailed in the High Court.  In his decision of 14 July 2017 Wylie J held that there was no contract to buy the aircraft and the contract cause of action failed, and as a consequence so did other related causes of action.[1]  He dismissed the claims.[2]  The appellant group appeals that decision.  Only the first to fifth respondents have taken active steps in this proceeding to oppose the appeal. 

Background

[1]Corrick v Silich [2017] NZHC 1630 at [80].

[2]At [98].

1. It is necessary to state the broad background.  We will refer to the contractual details later in this judgment. 

2. The aircraft in question was made in the USA and is a Trojan T28C.  There are a number in Australia and two in New Zealand.  It was produced from 1950 as a single engine training plane, designed for use in the United States Air Force and Navy.  In New Zealand it comes under the category of a “war…