Haines v Carter - [2001] NZCA 16

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA286/99

BETWEEN	R D HAINES
Appellant

AND	L V CARTER
Respondent

Hearing:	1 February 2001
Coram:	Keith J Blanchard J McGrath J
Appearances:	M J McCartney for the Appellant R B Stewart QC for the Respondent
Judgment:	12 February 2001

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY MCGRATH J

Introduction

The appellant applies for conditional leave to appeal to the Privy Council against a judgment of this Court delivered on 19 December 2000. That judgment dismissed an appeal against the summary judgment entered by Randerson J on 26 November 1999 against the appellant who was ordered to pay the respondent $1,500,000 together with interest at 10.5% calculated from 14 May 1999. The appellant also applies for a stay of execution of the judgment of this Court pending the determination of his proposed appeal by the Privy Council.

Background

As is more fully recorded in the earlier judgment of this Court the appellant and the respondent, who had respectively owned businesses that were in competition with each other, lived together between 1993 and February 1999. In 1997 they merged their business interests. Their personal relationship broke up in February 1999 and, following a mediation process, on 11 March 1999 they entered into an agreement as to the division between themselves of their assets.
In the agreement the parties specified the manner of division of their property which included shares in a number of companies. The parties also agreed that the appellant and respondent were to execute all documentation to give effect to the terms of their agreement within four days of presentation of it to them.
It was a further term of the agreement that, no later than 9 March 2000 that is twelve months after the date of the agreement, the appellant was to pay the respondent a sum provisionally fixed at $1,700,000 but which might be the subject of adjustment by decision of the persons who had acted as mediators. Pending that final payment the appellant was required by the agreement to continue to meet certain outgoings in respect of property of the respondent. Should the appellant default on any such payments the final adjusted sum would become immediately payable by the appellant, who also would be liable to penalty interest for late payment at the BNZ prime first mortgage rate plus 4%.
The sum payable by the appellant to the respondent was on 14 April 1999 adjusted from $1,700,000 to $1,500,000. Also under the agreement, on or shortly after 14 April, the respondent resigned as a director of the various companies ownership of which was to be vested in the appellant and signed share transfers, thereby relinquishing to the appellant a position of considerable strength and indeed legal control. Until this point the respondent had been the sole director of certain key companies in the group. These acts substantially implemented her obligations under the agreement.
On 23 April 1999 the appellant indicated for the first time that he was taking advice…

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 Haines v Carter

Details

AGLC: Haines v Carter [2001] NZCA 16
Case: [2001] NZCA 16
Decision Date: 12 February 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Haines v Carter is a case that came before the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The appellant, R D Haines, sought conditional leave to appeal to the Privy Council against a summary judgment entered by Randerson J, ordering the appellant to pay the respondent, L V Carter, $1,500,000 along with interest at 10.5% calculated from 14 May 1999. The appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 19 December 2000, and the appellant now seeks conditional leave to appeal to the Privy Council. The appellant also requests a stay of execution of the judgment pending the determination of the proposed appeal.

The legal issues in this case revolve around the enforcement of a settlement agreement between the appellant and the respondent, who were business partners and lived together until February 1999. The agreement, reached following a mediation process, outlined the division of their assets, including shares in various companies. The appellant was to pay the respondent $1.5 million by 9 March 2000, with interest accruing if the payment was not made on time. The appellant defaulted on the payment, prompting the respondent to seek summary judgment. The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, rejecting the appellant's argument of duress.

The Court of Appeal granted conditional leave to appeal to the Privy Council, subject to the appellant entering into a security of $2,000 and taking necessary steps for preparing the record and dispatching it to England within three months. Regarding the application to suspend the execution of the judgment, the Court considered the respondent's net worth and the appellant's substantial benefit from the respondent's performance of the agreement. The Court concluded that the respondent should not be impeded from enforcing her rights under the judgment, and thus, the application to suspend execution was refused. Costs of $2,500 were awarded to the respondent for the contested application.

Orders