Galbraith v Global Metal Solutions Limited - [2024] NZHC 2983

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CIV-2023-419-273

[2024] NZHC 2983

BETWEEN
ANTHONY PHILLIP GALBRAITH and GALBRAITH TRUSTEE 2018 LIMITED as

trustees of the HUNUA HOLDINGS TRUST

Applicants

AND

GLOBAL METAL SOLUTIONS LIMITED

Respondent

Hearing: 23 September 2024

Appearances:

M D Branch for the Applicant J Long for the Respondent

Judgment:

14 October 2024

Reissued:

6 November 2024

JUDGMENT OF BLANCHARD J

This judgment was delivered by me on Monday, 14 October 2024 at 3.30 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:Braun Bond & Lomas Limited (J Long), Hamilton Harkness Henry (M Branch), Hamilton

GALBRAITH v GLOBAL METAL SOLUTIONS LIMITED [2024] NZHC 2983 [14 October 2024]

[1] On 9 September 2019, the parties entered into an agreement to lease part of land owned by Hunua Holdings Trust (HHT) in Papakura. They are in dispute over issues relating to this lease.

[2] Their disputes have been referred to Royden Hindle for arbitration. The arbitration was split into two hearings. The first hearing took place in March and April last year, with a further day of hearing on 26 June 2023. On 9 August 2023, Mr Hindle issued an award in relation to that hearing. He corrected this on 18 September 2023. The second hearing took place between 8 and 12 July 2024, with closing submissions on 12 and 13 August 2024. The arbitrator has yet to release an award in relation to that hearing.

[3] The first hearing and first award cover many issues. One aspect related to HHT’s claim for payment of rent. That claim totalled $270,000 plus GST. Global Metal Solutions Ltd (GMS) denied that this sum was owing. Ultimately, the arbitrator held GMS owed rent of $120,172.44 plus GST.

[4] HHT applies to set aside aspects of the award and for leave to appeal certain aspects of the award.

[5]The issues that HHT has with the award are as follows:

(a)the arbitrator ordered GMS to pay GST exclusive rent amounts;

(b)the arbitrator refused to award contractual interest on the GST component of the rent;

(c)the arbitrator calculated contractual default interest from the 11th working day after default rather than the date of default;

(d)the arbitrator found that HHT must give GMS a credit for rent for the warehouse on the site paid by the previous tenant, J Swap Ltd, from 1 November 2019 to 16 December 2019, during which time J Swap remained on site; and

(e)the arbitrator accepted GMS’s argument that there should be partial abatement of the rent due to disruption from agreed landlord works.

[6] The application to set aside relates to issues (a)–(d). The application for leave to appeal relates to all five issues.

Application to set aside

[7] The application to set aside is made under arts 34(2)(a)(iii), 34(2)(b)(ii) and 34(6)(b) of sch 1 of the Arbitration Act 1996. These articles permit setting aside of an award that deals with matters outside the scope 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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Galbraith v Global Metal Solutions 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: [2024] NZHC 2983
Decision Date: 14 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Galbraith v Global Metal Solutions Limited involved a dispute between the applicants, Anthony Phillip Galbraith and Galbraith Trustee 2018 Limited as trustees of the Hunua Holdings Trust, and the respondent, Global Metal Solutions Limited. The dispute arose from a lease agreement concerning a portion of land owned by Hunua Holdings Trust in Papakura. The applicants sought to set aside certain aspects of an arbitration award issued by Royden Hindle and to obtain leave to appeal the award. The issues in question pertained to the calculation of rent, including GST, the awarding of interest on the GST component of the rent, the date from which default interest was calculated, the credit for rent paid by a previous tenant, and the abatement of rent due to disruption from landlord works. The court examined whether the arbitrator had jurisdiction over these issues and if there had been a breach of natural justice. The court found that the arbitrator's decisions were within the scope of the arbitration and did not constitute a breach of natural justice. Consequently, the applications to set aside the award and for leave to appeal were dismissed. Global Metal Solutions Limited was awarded costs for the appeal proceedings.

Orders