Glanz v JL Management Limited - [2020] NZHC 342

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CIV 2018-419-0181

[2020] NZHC 342

UNDER s 94A Judicature Act 1908, s 74A Property Law Act 2007 and the Fair Trading Act 1986

IN THE MATTER

of a building contract

BETWEEN

RUSSELL and ROBYNNE GLANZ

Plaintiffs

AND

JL MANAGEMENT LIMITED

First Defendant

JOHN RICHARD LLOYD

Second Defendant

Hearing 21 August 2019

Appearances:

MJ Matthew for the Plaintiffs

No appearance for the First Defendant Mr Lloyd in person

Judgment:

2 March 2020

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE SMITH

This judgment was delivered by me on 2 March 2020 at 3pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors / Counsel:
Rennie Cox, Auckland, J. Cox (jcox@renniecox.co.nz) Purnell Law, Thames, D. Quinn (damian@pjolaw.co.nz

Copy to: Mr J. Lloyd

Glanz v JL Management Ltd [2020] NZHC 342 [2 March 2020]

[1] The plaintiffs apply for summary judgment against the defendants, on the basis of an amended statement of claim dated 11 December 2018. They also apply for summary judgment on a counterclaim filed by the first defendant (JLM). The summary judgment application was not made within the time allowed under the High Court Rules 2016, but on 11 February 2019 I made an order by consent granting the plaintiffs leave to file the application.

[2] The defendants were initially represented by Mr Damian Quinn, solicitor, but on the eve of the hearing of the summary judgment application Mr Quinn made an application for leave to withdraw. The second defendant, Mr Lloyd, who is the director of JLM, had withdrawn instructions to Mr Quinn on behalf of both defendants, and Mr Lloyd had taken the necessary steps to advise the Court and the plaintiffs that he would be acting for himself in the proceeding.

[3] I heard from counsel and Mr Lloyd by telephone conference on 20 August 2019, and at the commencement of the hearing on 21 August 2019 I made an order declaring that Mr Quinn was no longer solicitor on record for JLM. The hearing proceeded, with Mr Lloyd representing himself and JLM unrepresented.1

Summary of the dispute

[4] This is a building dispute. JLM agreed to act as project manager for the plaintiffs, arranging the construction of a luxury residence for them at Tairua. JLM would arrange for and pay the builder and other contractors and suppliers, and it would charge a project management fee for its own services. It would not add any mark-up to the invoices it received from the builder, contractors and suppliers.

[5] The parties agreed on a fixed price of $1,240,350.58 for the contract, including JLM’s project management fees. For that price, JLM would arrange for the completion of the house to a “closed in, habitable and consented standard”. JLM would send progress payment claims to the plaintiffs on a monthly basis.

1 Under r 7.40(1)(a) of the High Court Rules, the Court may elect to proceed and determine an interlocutory application if a party…

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 Glanz v JL Management 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: [2020] NZHC 342
Decision Date: 2 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Glanz v JL Management Limited, the plaintiffs, Mr and Mrs Glanz, applied for summary judgment against JL Management Limited (JLM) and its director, Mr Lloyd. The plaintiffs alleged that JLM had overcharged them for work on a residential building project in Tairua, New Zealand. The plaintiffs sought summary judgment on their contract claim, their claim for payment made by mistake, and their claims under the Fair Trading Act. The court found that the plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment on their contract claim in the sum of $214,657.78, and on their claim for $20,000 paid by mistake to JLM after the contract was cancelled. The court found that JLM had no reasonably arguable defence to the plaintiffs' claims under the Fair Trading Act, and that the plaintiffs were entitled to judgment for liability on those claims, with the questions of quantum to be decided at trial. The plaintiffs were also entitled to summary judgment on JLM's counterclaims. The plaintiffs were entitled to interest on their judgments and to costs against JLM and Mr Lloyd.

Orders