Goodwin v Rocket Surgery Limited - [2014] NZCA 540

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA604/2013
[2014] NZCA 540

BETWEEN	WAYNE ERNEST GOODWIN AND MARY ELIZABETH GOODWIN Appellants
AND	ROCKET SURGERY LIMITED Respondent

CA749/2013
BETWEEN	WAYNE ERNEST GOODWIN AND MARY ELIZABETH GOODWIN Appellants
AND	ROCKET SURGERY LIMITED Respondent

Hearing:	2 October 2014
Court:	French, Venning and Dobson JJ
Counsel:	A C Beck for Appellants D P Robinson for Respondent
Judgment:	10 November 2014 at 3.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal against the decision of the High Court dismissing the appellants’ application to sustain the caveat (CA604/2013) is allowed to the extent that the award of costs is quashed. The respondent’s application for costs in the caveat proceeding is referred back to the High Court for determination.
BThe appeal in CA604/2013 is dismissed in all other respects.
CThe appeal against the decision of the High Court in the summary judgment proceeding (CA749/2013) is allowed to the extent that the award of costs against the appellants is quashed. The respondent’s application for costs in the summary judgment proceeding is referred back to the High Court for determination.
DThe appeal in CA749/2013 is dismissed in all other respects.
EThere is no order for costs in this Court.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Venning J)

Introduction

In CA604/2013 the appellants (the Goodwins) appeal from a decision of Associate Judge Abbott dismissing their application for an order that a caveat not lapse and ordering them to pay costs on the application.[1] In CA749/2013 the Goodwins appeal a subsequent decision of Associate Judge Osborne requiring them to deliver up vacant possession of the property in issue and pay costs.[2]
[1]Goodwin v Rocket Surgery Ltd [2013] NZHC 2046.
[2]Rocket Surgery Ltd v Goodwin [2013] NZHC 2648.
In both cases Rocket Surgery Ltd (RSL) is the respondent. The arguments in this Court were heard together. Given the factual overlap between the two appeals, it is convenient to address both in the context of this one judgment.

General background

We take the background summary to the proceedings from an earlier decision of this Court as follows:[3]
[3]       The Goodwins owned a residential property at Mosgiel, near Dunedin, known as “Chelmsford”. They fell into financial difficulties and faced a sale by the mortgagee, Westpac Banking Corporation.
[4]       The Goodwins’ son-in-law, Campbell Harvey, agreed to assist in saving Chelmsford from sale. Mr Harvey and some colleagues were shareholders in RSL, a small private company. RSL agreed to borrow a sufficient sum to buy the property at the mortgagee’s sale and to cover financing costs for a year after purchase while the Goodwins recovered financially. The ultimate purpose was to enable the Goodwins to buy Chelmsford back in their own names or through a nominee.
[5]       It was agreed in principle that RSL would derive some reward for providing the finance. Apart from an understanding that when repurchasing the Goodwins would repay RSL all outgoings spent on the property, they were also to pay a fee for providing 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.

Continue reading Goodwin v Rocket Surgery Limited

Details

AGLC: Goodwin v Rocket Surgery Limited [2014] NZCA 540
Case: [2014] NZCA 540
Decision Date: 10 November 2014 at 3.30 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Goodwins appealed against two High Court decisions that dismissed their applications to sustain a caveat and to strike out a summary judgment proceeding brought by Rocket Surgery Ltd (RSL). RSL sought vacant possession of a property and the Goodwins claimed an equitable interest in it. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals to the extent that the costs awards were quashed and referred back to the High Court for reconsideration. The substantive decisions of the High Court were otherwise affirmed.

The substantive issues were whether the Goodwins had a caveatable interest in the property and whether the summary judgment application was properly determined. The Court of Appeal held that the Goodwins' claim to a caveatable interest was unsustainable as it was limited to a claim for surplus proceeds of sale, not an interest in the property itself. This was inconsistent with the requirement to describe the interest claimed with sufficient certainty. The Court of Appeal also held that RSL was entitled to possession as the Goodwins had no credible claim to remain in occupation.

The Court of Appeal quashed the costs awards on the basis that the Associate Judge did not properly consider the Goodwins' means and conduct in making the awards. The issue of costs was referred back to the High Court to be reconsidered in light of the Legal Services Act.

In summary, the substantive decisions of the High Court were affirmed but the costs awards were quashed and referred back for reconsideration. No costs were awarded in the Court of Appeal.

Orders