Harrison v Keogh - [2015] NZHC 2791

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2015-404-001571 [2015] NZHC 2791

BETWEEN
AIDAN JOSEPH HARRISON

First Appellant

AND

WELLINGTON CITY HELICOPTERS LIMITED

Second Appellant

AND

JOHN PATRICK JOSEPH KEOGH Respondent

Hearing: 22 October 2015

Appearances:

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

Judgment:

11 November 2015

JUDGMENT OF NATION J

Introduction

[1] The respondent (Mr Keogh) issued proceedings in the District Court against the first appellant (Mr Harrison) and the second appellant, Wellington City Helicopters Limited (WCHL). The claim was for an amount of US$52,312.26, a sum which represented 7.52 per cent of funds available to shareholders on accounts prepared for WCHL and provided to Mr Keogh in August 2012.

[2] WCHL counterclaimed for $63,037. This was the amount shown as being due from Mr Keogh to WCHL in further accounts for the year to 31 March 2013,
prepared in October 2013.

HARRISON v KEOGH [2015] NZHC 2791 [11 November 2015]

[3] In a judgment of 19 June 2015, Judge Andrée Wiltens decided that Mr Keogh’s claim was established.1 WCHL was required to pay US$52,312.26 plus interest at the District Court rate from 13 November 2012 to the date of judgment. The counterclaim was impliedly dismissed. The Judge made no decision in relation to Mr Keogh’s claim against Mr Harrison. Mr Harrison and WCHL have appealed against that decision. On their appeal, they ask this Court to dismiss Mr Keogh’s
claim. They seek an order requiring Mr Keogh to pay the $63,037 as WCHL had counterclaimed for.

Approach on appeal

[4] Because this appeal proceeds by way of rehearing, I am required to make my own assessment of the evidence which the District Court Judge had to consider. If, having regard to the submissions of counsel and my assessment of the evidence, my conclusion as to Messrs Harrison and Keogh’s respective entitlements differs from that of the District Court Judge then I must find the judgment was in error and allow
the appeal.2

Background

[5] Counsel for the appellants did not take issue with the way Judge Andrée Wiltens had summarised the background to the dispute between the parties or his record of key communications between WCHL’s accountant and Mr Keogh during
2012. They did strongly challenge the opinion which the Judge expressed as to the accountant, Mr Stevens, being vulnerable to manipulation by Mr Harrison. They also argued strongly that the conclusion which the Judge came to, as to there being an implied term in a settlement agreement reached between Mr Harrison and Mr Keogh, was incorrect both in law and on the facts.

[6] Mr Keogh is a New Zealand resident and a former police officer. Mr Harrison is a successful property developer based in Ireland. Mr Keogh and Mr Harrison are first cousins. Mr Keogh had come to know Mr Harrison well through
visits to Ireland as an adult. Mr Harrison developed a friendship with Mr Keogh and

1 Keogh v Harrison [2015] NZDC 11226.
2 Austin, Nichols &…

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 2791
Case: [2015] NZHC 2791
Decision Date: 11 November 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in this case were Mr John Keogh, who was a former police officer and business associate of Mr Aidan Harrison, and Mr Harrison and his company, Wellington City Helicopters Limited (WCHL). Mr Keogh brought proceedings against the appellants in the District Court seeking payment of US$52,312.26, which was the amount he claimed was due to him as a shareholder in WCHL. WCHL counterclaimed for $63,037, which was the amount Mr Keogh was said to owe to WCHL. The District Court Judge found in favour of Mr Keogh and dismissed the counterclaim. The appellants appealed against the decision. The court was required to determine whether the District Court Judge was correct to decide that an amount of US$52,312.26 was due to Mr Keogh and that WCHL was in breach of an implied contractual term to pay him that sum. The court had to determine whether the District Court Judge was correct to find that Mr Keogh was entitled to judgment against Mr Harrison personally. The court found that the District Court Judge was correct to decide that an amount of US$52,312.26 was due to Mr Keogh and that WCHL was in breach of an implied contractual term to pay him that sum. The court found that Mr Keogh had relied on representations made to him by WCHL in 2012 and that it was unconscionable for WCHL not to pay Mr Keogh the amount due to him. The court found that Mr Keogh was entitled to judgment against Mr Harrison personally. The court dismissed WCHL's appeal against the District Court decision. The court reserved judgment in respect of Mr Harrison's appeal against the District Court decision.

Orders