Harrison v Keogh - [2015] NZHC 3323

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2015-404-001571 [2015] NZHC 3323

BETWEEN
AIDAN JOSEPH HARRISON

First Appellant

AND

WELLINGTON CITY HELICOPTERS LIMITED

Second Appellant

AND

JOHN PATRICK JOSEPH KEOGH Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

M B Beech & D M Fraundorfer for the Appellants
Respondent in person

Judgment:

18 December 2015

JUDGMENT OF NATION J

[1] The first appellant (Mr Harrison) and the second appellant (WCHL) both appealed a judgment in favour of the respondent (Mr Keogh) against WCHL for the sum of USD52,312.26. Mr Keogh also obtained an order that WCHL pay costs on that judgment in the sum of $14,318.28.

[2] The respondent had made a claim for USD52,312.26 in the District Court against both Mr Harrison and WCHL. WCHL had counterclaimed for $63,037.

[3] The District Court gave judgment against WCHL on the respondent’s claim
and against WCHL on its counterclaim. Both Mr Harrison and WCHL then lodged their appeal. Both were represented at the hearing of the appeal by the same counsel.

HARRISON & WELLINGTON CITY HELICOPTERS v KEOGH [2015] NZHC 3323 [18 December 2015]

[4] (Mr Keogh represented himself in both the District Court and on the hearing of the appeal. He had not filed any cross-appeal in relation to the judgment of the District Court, but no decision had been made in that Court with regard to his claim against Mr Harrison personally.

[5] The evidential basis for Mr Keogh’s claim was traversed fully in the

judgment of the District Court of 19 June 2015 and my judgment of 11 November

2015.1

[6] Mr Keogh’s claim arose out of a settlement reached between him and Mr Harrison and documented in a record of settlement dated 30 August 2011. The agreement was entered into by Mr Harrison personally but was to be a full and final settlement of all issues, including employment and business dealings between Mr Harrison and his associated businesses and companies, and Mr Keogh and his associated businesses and companies. In the record of settlement, the parties acknowledged they had “the mandate to settle on behalf of themselves and their associated businesses and companies”.

[7] The record of settlement required a distribution to the shareholders of WCHL once a helicopter belonging to the company had been sold and accounts showing the funds available for the shareholders had been prepared. As detailed in this Court’s judgment of 11 November 2015, the appropriate draft accounts were prepared. On
13 November 2012, Mr Harrison arranged for a payment to his shareholding company from a bank account of WCHL in accordance with the amount due as shown by those draft accounts. In an email of 12 December 2012, Mr Harrison acknowledged in an email sent to Mr and Mrs Keogh that the amount due to him was as shown in the draft accounts but claimed he could set-off another alleged unrelated debt. Mr Keogh immediately stated he could not do this. Mr Harrison has never pursued any claim in respect of such alleged…

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 Harrison v Keogh

Details

AGLC: Harrison v Keogh [2015] NZHC 3323
Case: [2015] NZHC 3323
Decision Date: 18 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Harrison v Keogh is a case heard by the High Court of New Zealand, where Aidan Joseph Harrison and Wellington City Helicopters Limited appealed a judgment in favour of John Patrick Joseph Keogh. Keogh had claimed USD52,312.26 from both Harrison and Wellington City Helicopters Limited (WCHL) in the District Court. WCHL had counterclaimed for $63,037. The District Court ruled in favour of Keogh against WCHL on the original claim and against WCHL on its counterclaim. Both Harrison and WCHL appealed the District Court's decision. Keogh represented himself both in the District Court and on the appeal hearing.

The legal issues before the court were whether the appeal against the District Court judgment was valid and if Mr Harrison was personally liable for the debt claimed by Keogh. The court had to determine if the appeal was properly brought and if the District Court judgment against WCHL was valid. Additionally, the court had to examine if Mr Harrison could be held personally liable for the debt claimed by Keogh.

The court found that the appeal was properly brought and upheld the District Court judgment against WCHL for the sum of USD52,312.26. The court also determined that Mr Harrison was personally liable to Keogh. The court relied on the principle of promissory estoppel, which prevents a party from denying an assumption or expectation that the other party has relied upon if it would be unconscionable to do so. The court found that Mr Harrison had personally represented to Keogh that all issues between them would be settled through the implementation of the settlement, and it would be unconscionable to allow him to resile from those obligations.

The court concluded that Keogh was entitled to judgment against Mr Harrison in the sum of USD52,312.26, together with costs for proceedings in the District Court as the District Court fixed as being appropriate for those proceedings, namely the sum of $14,318.28 and disbursements on the appeal which the court fixed in a separate judgment in the sum of $6,001.77. Mr Harrison's liability as a result of this judgment is joint and several with the liability of WCHL.

Orders