Haines v Memelink - [2024] NZSC 163

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 100/2024
[2024] NZSC 163

BETWEEN	QUENTIN STOBART HAINES First Applicant
AND	BPE TRUSTEES (NO 1) LIMITED Second Applicant
AND	QUENTIN HAINES PROPERTIES LIMITED Third Applicant
AND	HARRY MEMELINK AND CISCA FORSTER AS TRUSTEES OF THE LINK TRUST NO 1 (IN RECEIVERSHIP) Respondents

Court:	Glazebrook and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	C R Carruthers KC and J P Dallas for First, Second and Third Applicants J D Haig for Respondents
Judgment:	28 November 2024

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B The applicants must pay the respondents one set of costs of $2,500.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Introduction

The applicants seek leave to appeal against two judgments of the Court of Appeal:
(a)the decision not to extend time to file a civil appeal;[1] and
(b)the refusal of an application to recall that judgment.[2]

Background[3]

[1]Haines v Memelink [2024] NZCA 245 (French and Mallon JJ) [First CA judgment].

[2]Haines v Memelink [2024] NZCA 374 (French and Mallon JJ) [CA recall judgment].

[3]For a fuller background see: First CA judgment, above n 1, at [4]–[17].

Mr Haines and Mr Memelink had been involved in various commercial dealings between 2016 and 2018, when relations soured and they became embroiled in litigation.
Three loans were at the centre of the proceedings owed to two finance companies: Fico Finance and Bright Enterprise Holdings Ltd (Bright). The principal debtors under the loans were the applicants but the loans were guaranteed by Mr Haines and Mr Memelink or entities associated with them, including the Link Trust (Mr Memelink’s family trust). The applicants defaulted on the loans and the Link Trust repaid them.
In 2020, the Link Trust issued proceedings to recover the amount of the loan repayments and applied for summary judgment. The applicants opposed summary judgment and filed a counterclaim pleading breach of contract and tortious interference in contractual relations. The Link Trust applied to strike out the counterclaim.
The issue in the High Court on the summary judgment was whether the finance companies had validly assigned their loan agreements to the Link Trust, thus rendering the applicants liable to reimburse the Link Trust. The application for summary judgment was granted by the High Court on 3 August 2021 (the liability judgment).[4] The Judge directed a trial to deal with quantum and with the counterclaim. The applicants filed an application for an extension of time to appeal against the liability judgment on 22 December 2023.
[4]Memelink v Haines [2021] NZHC 1992 (Grice J) at [187].
On 19 March 2024 a judgment on quantum was issued in favour of the Link Trust.[5] An appeal against that judgment is to be heard in the Court of Appeal on 24 March 2025.

Court of Appeal judgments

[5]Memelink v Haines [2024] NZHC 588. We note that the Link Trust had been placed in receivership in May 2022.

In deciding on the application for an extension of…

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 Memelink

Details

AGLC: Haines v Memelink [2024] NZSC 163
Case: [2024] NZSC 163
Decision Date: 28 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, the applicants, Quentin Stobart Haines, BPE Trustees (No 1) Limited, and Quentin Haines Properties Limited, sought leave to appeal against two judgments of the Court of Appeal. The first judgment denied an extension of time to file a civil appeal, and the second judgment refused an application to recall the first judgment. The respondents were Harry Memelink and Cisca Forster as trustees of the Link Trust No 1 (in receivership). The applicants argued that summary judgment should have been denied due to the non-disclosure of key documents, and that they were not given a right to be heard in the recall application. The Court of Appeal had previously found that the delay in filing the appeal was inordinate, and that the proposed appeal appeared weak.

The court was required to determine whether the proposed grounds for appeal demonstrated that the Court of Appeal had erred in its assessment, thereby creating a risk of a miscarriage of justice. The applicants argued that the Court of Appeal was in error by denying the extension of time and refusing the recall application. The court had to assess whether the proposed appeal raised issues of general or public importance, and whether the Court of Appeal had misapplied established principles in its judgments.

The Supreme Court found that the proposed grounds for appeal related to the particular circumstances of the case and did not raise issues of general or public importance. The court held that there was no risk of a miscarriage of justice, as the Court of Appeal had correctly applied established principles in both judgments. Furthermore, many of the proposed grounds were to be raised in the appeal against the judgment on quantum, which was scheduled to be heard in March 2025. The Supreme Court concluded that the application for leave to appeal should be dismissed, and the applicants were ordered to pay one set of costs amounting to $2,500.

Orders