Fletcher v The LawLink Group Limited - [2023] NZHC 2622

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2021-470-000071

[2023] NZHC 2622

BETWEEN
DARRYL JOHN FLETCHER

Plaintiff

AND

THE LAWLINK GROUP LIMITED

First Defendant

RESOLUTION LIFE AUSTRALASIA LIMITED

Second Defendant

Hearing: 7 September 2023

Appearances:

D J Fletcher, Plaintiff in Person

P McKinnon for the First Defendant
D J Friar and J F Hall for the Second Defendant

Judgment:

21 September 2023

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE GARDINER

This judgment was delivered by me on 21 September 2023 at 3.30 p.m. pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date.......................................

Solicitors:

Morgan Coakle, Auckland Bell Gully, Auckland

FLETCHER v THE LAWLINK GROUP LTD [2023] NZHC 2622 [21 September 2023]

Introduction

[1] Darryl Fletcher, a former lawyer and partner of a Tauranga law firm, brings a claim against Resolution Life Australasia Limited (Resolution Life) for breaching a group income continuance policy procured by The LawLink Group Limited (LawLink). He claims that Resolution Life wrongly required medical reports and medical assessments and then stopped paying him a total disability benefit when he refused to comply with those requirements. Mr Fletcher sues to recover the benefit and general damages.

[2] Mr Fletcher now applies for leave to amend his statement of claim and to file interlocutory applications: for summary judgment and for an interim payment pursuant to r 7.69 of the High Court Rules 2016. Leave is required because the close of pleadings date has passed.

[3] As directed by Associate Judge Sussock on 15 August 2023, Mr Fletcher filed a draft amended statement of claim together with a memorandum containing his submissions in support of his applications for leave.1 Resolution Life filed a memorandum setting out its submissions in opposition. I heard oral submissions from Mr Fletcher and Mr Friar during a telephone conference.

Procedural background

[4] Following a judicial settlement conference in December 2022, this proceeding was set down for a 5-day trial in August 2023. As set out in the Minute of Associate Judge Sussock dated 12 December 2022:

(a)the deadline for interlocutory applications was 22 December 2022;

(b)the close of pleadings date was 24 March 2023; and

(c)Mr Fletcher’s briefs of evidence were due on 28 April 2023.

1 Referring to further submissions in an earlier memorandum of 4 August 2023.

[5] On 17 January 2023, the Court emailed the parties noting that the deadline for interlocutory applications had passed and seeking an update from the parties. Mr Fletcher, who was then represented by counsel, did not indicate that he intended to make any applications.

[6] Mr Fletcher did not serve his briefs of evidence by 28 April 2023. Counsel for Resolution Life made inquiries with Mr Fletcher’s counsel and then sought an urgent case management conference. In response, on 9 May 2023 counsel for Mr Fletcher filed a memorandum requesting an adjournment of the August 2023 trial.

[7] On 11 May 2023, the parties attended a teleconference before Justice Campbell. Having heard…

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 Fletcher v The LawLink Group 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: [2023] NZHC 2622
Decision Date: 21 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Darryl John Fletcher has commenced proceedings against Resolution Life Australasia Limited, with The LawLink Group Limited as a second defendant, seeking damages for breach of contract and other relief in relation to a group income continuance policy procured by LawLink. Mr Fletcher claims Resolution Life wrongly required medical reports and assessments and then stopped paying him a total disability benefit when he refused to comply with those requirements. He seeks to amend his statement of claim and file interlocutory applications for summary judgment and an interim payment. The court must determine whether leave should be granted for these actions, given that the close of pleadings date has passed.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Mr Fletcher should be granted leave to amend his statement of claim and file interlocutory applications after the close of pleadings date. The court considered the principles governing such leave, including the interests of justice, potential prejudice to the defendants, and the likelihood of delay. It also considered the merits of Mr Fletcher's proposed amendments and the prospects of success for the interlocutory applications.

The court held that Mr Fletcher should be granted leave to amend his statement of claim to include allegations relating to Resolution Life's interpretation of the 'total disablement' definition. The court was satisfied that there was a strong interest in allowing Mr Fletcher to present his full claim, that the amendments could be made without significant prejudice or delay, and that there was enough time before the trial for the defendants to respond. However, the court declined to grant leave for the interlocutory applications, finding that they had no prospect of success and would only serve to derail the trial and prolong the proceeding.

The court granted Mr Fletcher leave to file an amended statement of claim, on the condition that the amendments relate solely to Resolution Life's interpretation of the 'total disablement' definition, by 5 October 2023. The court dismissed Mr Fletcher's application for leave to file interlocutory applications. Costs were reserved.

Orders