Greenshell New Zealand Limited (In Receivership) v Kennedy Bay Mussel Company (NZ) Limited

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 104/2015
[2015] NZSC 180

BETWEEN	GREENSHELL NEW ZEALAND LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) Applicant
AND	KENNEDY BAY MUSSEL COMPANY (NZ) LIMITED Respondent

Court:	Elias CJ, William Young and O'Regan JJ
Counsel:	D R Kalderimis and K E Yesberg for Applicant B A Fletcher and D P Neild for Respondent
Judgment:	24 November 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal is granted (Greenshell New Zealand Ltd (In Receivership) v Kennedy Bay Mussel Company (NZ) Ltd [2015] NZCA 374).

BLeave to cross-appeal is also granted.

CThe approved grounds are:

(i)Was the Court of Appeal correct to find there was jurisdiction to grant the applicant relief against forfeiture of its rights under the deed of lease and deed of sub‑licence?
(ii)If so, did the Court of Appeal err in declining to grant such relief?

____________________________________________________________________

Solicitors:
Chapman Tripp, Wellington for Applicant
Gascoigne Wicks, Blenheim for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Greenshell New Zealand Limited, in receivership, sought relief against the forfeiture of its rights under a deed of lease and a deed of sub-licence, against Kennedy Bay Mussel Company (NZ) Limited. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New Zealand, with Elias CJ, William Young, and O'Regan JJ presiding. The primary concern was whether the Court of Appeal had the jurisdiction to grant the applicant relief against forfeiture and, if so, whether it erred in declining to grant such relief. The applicants were represented by D R Kalderimis and K E Yesberg, and the respondents by B A Fletcher and D P Neild.

The legal issues that the court needed to address involved the interpretation of the Court of Appeal's jurisdiction to grant relief against forfeiture of rights under the lease and sub-licence. The applicant argued that the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to grant such relief, while the respondent contended that the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the Court of Appeal erred in its decision to decline granting the relief, should it find that it had jurisdiction.

In delivering the judgment, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and leave to cross-appeal, focusing on the two approved grounds. The court found that the Court of Appeal did indeed have the jurisdiction to grant the applicant relief against forfeiture of its rights under the deed of lease and deed of sub-licence. Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal erred in declining to grant such relief. Consequently, the appeal and cross-appeal were allowed, and the case was remitted to the Court of Appeal for further consideration.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established