Glaister v Harris - [2014] NZHC 2153

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

CIV-2014-412-000049 [2014] NZHC 2153

BETWEEN
GEORGE PETER GLAISTER

Plaintiff

AND

SONIA LEE HARRIS Defendant

Hearing: 27 August 2014

Appearances:

D R Tobin for Plaintiff
R Kelly for Defendant

Judgment:

8 September 2014

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE MATTHEWS

[1] The plaintiff, Mr Glaister, and the defendant, Ms Harris, are parties to a relationship property agreement dated 25 November 2011. The agreement makes provision for the division of a significant number of assets which Mr Glaister and Ms Harris held during the course of their former marriage. The meaning of four clauses of the agreement is in dispute. They relate to a contribution to the cost of an underpass beneath Kaka Point Road that was thought to be necessary as a result of the agreed division of the farms Mr Glaister and Ms Harris formerly owned. In short, Mr Glaister says that Ms Harris owes him $150,000, which she has not paid.

[2] Ms Harris says she is not obliged to pay this sum. Whilst acknowledging some obligation may exist under the clauses in question, her view is that the extent of her obligation, if any, is not established.

[3] Mr Glaister seeks judgment against Ms Harris on a summary basis, maintaining that she does not have a defence to his claim.

GLAISTER v HARRIS [2014] NZHC 2153 [8 September 2014]

The principles of summary judgment

[4] Rule 12.2 of the High Court Rules provides:

12.2Judgment when there is no defence or when no cause of action can succeed

(1) The court may give judgment against a defendant if the plaintiff satisfies the court that the defendant has no defence to [a cause of action in the statement of claim or to a particular part of any such cause of action].

(2) ...

[5] The principles the Court is to apply on an application for summary judgment are summarised in Krukziener v Hanover Finance Ltd:1

[26] The principles are well settled. The question on a summary judgment application is whether the defendant has no defence to the claim; that is, that there is no real question to be tried: Pemberton v Chappell [1987] 1 NZLR 1 at 3 (CA). The Court must be left without any real doubt or uncertainty. The onus is on the plaintiff, but where its evidence is sufficient to show there is no defence, the defendant will have to respond if the application is to be defeated: MacLean v Stewart (1997) 11 PRNZ 66 (CA). The Court will not normally resolve material conflicts of evidence or assess the credibility of deponents. But it need not accept uncritically evidence that is inherently lacking in credibility, as for example where the evidence is inconsistent with undisputed contemporary documents or other statements by the same deponent, or is inherently improbable: Eng Mee Yong v Letchumanan [1980] AC 331 at 341 (PC). In the end the Court’s assessment of the evidence is a matter of judgment. The Court may…

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 Glaister v Harris

Details

AGLC: Glaister v Harris [2014] NZHC 2153
Case: [2014] NZHC 2153
Decision Date: 8 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

George Peter Glaister and Sonia Lee Harris were married and entered into a relationship property agreement in 2011. The agreement included provisions for the division of their assets, including a farm. As part of the division, an underpass beneath Kaka Point Road was required. Clause 8 of the agreement states that Harris would contribute $150,000 towards the cost of the underpass. Glaister claims Harris has not paid this sum, and seeks judgment on a summary basis. Harris denies any obligation to pay. The court must determine whether the defendant has a defence to the claim. The court finds that the agreement was entered into in the context of difficult negotiations, and that there was an expectation that the underpass would cost over $300,000. The court also finds that there is an arguable case for relief under the Contractual Mistakes Act, as both parties were influenced by a mistaken belief that the cost of the underpass would be over $300,000. The court finds that the application for summary judgment cannot succeed. The application for summary judgment is dismissed.

Orders