Herron v Wallace

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 98/2017
[2017] NZSC 174

BETWEEN	STUART WALTON HERRON Applicant
AND	WAYNE ANDREW WALLACE First Respondent
BELMONT LIFESTYLE VILLAGE LIMITED Second Respondent

Court:	William Young, Glazebrook and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	J A Farmer QC and C T Patterson for Applicant M A Corlett QC, A I C Denton and E F Armstrong for Respondents
Judgment:	22 November 2017

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

BCosts of $2,500 are awarded to the respondents.

REASONS

Background

Mr Herron applies for leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal.[1]
[1]Wallace v Herron [2017] NZCA 346 (Kόs P, Harrison and Winkelmann JJ).
The background is complicated and fully explored in the Court of Appeal judgment.[2] For these purposes, it is only necessary to record that in contention is a clause in a settlement document that gave a credit of $675,000 if a contract relating to a Queenstown apartment to be developed by interests associated with Mr Bryers became unconditional.
[2]At [4]–[24].
The Court of Appeal held that Mr Herron had released the Bryers’ interests from their obligations with regard to that contract and had caused the condition not to be fulfilled. He therefore could not recover the $675,000.[3]

Decision

[3]At [40]–[54].

The judgment of the Court of Appeal related to the very particular facts and documentation in this case. This means that no point of general public or commercial significance arises. Further, nothing raised by Mr Herron suggests a miscarriage of justice.[4]
[4]In the sense required in civil cases: see Junior Farms Ltd v Hampton Securities (in liq) [2006] NZSC 60, (2006) 18 PRNZ 369.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondents.

Solicitors:
Skeates Law Limited, Auckland, for Applicant
Wilson Harle, Auckland, for Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Stuart Walton Herron sought leave to appeal a decision made by the Court of Appeal. The primary dispute in this case revolves around a settlement document which contained a clause that would grant Herron a credit of $675,000 if a contract relating to a Queenstown apartment, to be developed by interests associated with Mr Bryers, became unconditional. The first respondent, Wayne Andrew Wallace, and the second respondent, Belmont Lifestyle Village Limited, were the respondents to Herron's appeal. The case was presided over by Justices William Young, Glazebrook, and Ellen France, with legal counsel representing both the applicant and the respondents.

The central legal issue the Court had to decide was whether Herron could recover the $675,000 credit under the settlement document. This hinged on whether Herron had released the Bryers’ interests from their obligations related to the contract, thereby preventing the condition from being fulfilled. The Court of Appeal had ruled that Herron had indeed released the Bryers’ interests and thus could not recover the credit. The Court had to determine whether this decision warranted an appeal, given the specific nature of the case and its implications for general legal principles.

The Supreme Court concluded that no point of general public or commercial significance arose from the judgment of the Court of Appeal. Furthermore, there was no evidence of a miscarriage of justice that would warrant an appeal. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and costs of $2,500 were awarded to the respondents. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to the specific facts and documentation in such cases, and reinforces the principle that appeals should be granted only in cases where broader legal issues of public or commercial significance are at stake.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established