Hornsby v Haines - [2018] NZHC 416

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2016-404-3126 [2018] NZHC 416

BETWEEN EDWARD THOMAS HORNSBY Appellant

ANDRODNEY DAVID HAINES Respondent

Hearing: 14 November 2017
with supplementary submissions 20, 21 and 24 November 2017

Appearances: S P Bryers for Appellant
R C Mark for Respondent

Judgment: 15 March 2018

JUDGMENT OF PALMER J

This judgment is delivered by me on 15 March 2018 at 11.30 am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.

..................................................... Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Counsel/Solicitors:
S P Bryers, Barrister, Auckland
Richard Allen Law Associates Ltd, Auckland
Richard Mark, Kerikeri

HORNSBY v HAINES [2018] NZHC 416 [15 March 2018]

Summary

[1] Mr Edward Hornsby and Mr Rodney (Tucker) Haines entered several agreements in relation to property at Riverhead, Auckland. They now disagree about what was agreed. Mr Hornsby appeals from a District Court decision which held him personally liable for outstanding debt under two agreements. He says he entered them under economic duress because Mr Haines had him by the short and curlies after illegitimately issuing a notice under the Property Law Act 2007 (PLA). He also claims he is not personally liable and the amount awarded to Mr Haines by the District Court is incorrect. Mr Haines opposes the appeal.

[2] I do not accept Mr Hornsby entered the agreements under duress. Mr Haines was entitled to issue the PLA notice. It is not wise to assume legal obligations will not need to be discharged. Mr Haines’ grasp on Mr Hornsby’s short and curlies was not illegitimate. Mr Hornsby was personally liable under the agreements. But the District Court erred in the amount awarded to Mr Haines, which I adjust.

What happened?

2003 Haines lease to Hornsby’s ABRC

[3] Mr Haines owned a commercial property at Duke Street, Riverhead, near

Auckland. He used it to store houses pending sale and delivery. On 1 September

2003, he leased the property to Amalgamated Buildings Removals and Contracting

Ltd (ABRC) which was owned by Mr Hornsby.

2004 Haines sale to Hornsby’s Okura with lease-back to Haines’ HHH

[4] In May 2004, Mr Haines entered into an agreement with another company owned by Mr Hornsby, Okura Developments Ltd (Okura), to sell the Duke Street property. At that time, the property was valued at $850,000. The shareholding of Okura was not before the District Court or the High Court hearing. After the hearing, however, Mr Bryers for Mr Hornsby by memorandum of counsel advised 99 of 100 shares in Okura Develoopments Ltd are owned by Hornsby Earthmovers Ltd and the other share by Mr Hornsby. Mr Mark, for Mr Haines, consented to this evidence being produced.

[5] Mr Haines agreed to sell the Duke Street property, for $820,000, to Okura which would lease part of it back to a company owned by Mr Haines, Haines House Haulage Ltd (HHH) for $28,329.50 a year.

[6] The parties agree the sale price was $30,000 below market price. Mr Hornsby says…

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 Hornsby v Haines

Details

AGLC: Hornsby v Haines [2018] NZHC 416
Case: [2018] NZHC 416
Decision Date: 15 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Edward Thomas Hornsby, the appellant, appealed against the decision of the District Court which held him personally liable for outstanding debt under two agreements. The agreements were in relation to property at Riverhead, Auckland, and had been entered into with Rodney (Tucker) Haines, the respondent. The appellant argued that he had entered the agreements under economic duress as the respondent had illegitimately issued a notice under the Property Law Act 2007. Additionally, the appellant claimed that he was not personally liable and that the amount awarded to the respondent was incorrect. The respondent opposed the appeal.

The court found that the appellant had not entered the agreements under duress and that the respondent was entitled to issue the notice under the Property Law Act 2007. The court also found that the appellant was personally liable under the agreements. However, the court determined that the District Court had erred in the amount awarded to the respondent and adjusted the amount accordingly. The court declined the appeal, except for varying the sum owed by the appellant to the respondent and awarding interest.

The court's decision was based on the legal issues of whether there was economic duress, whether the appellant was personally liable, and for what amount the appellant was liable. The court found that the pressure exerted on the appellant to sign the agreements was not illegitimate, and that the appellant was personally liable under the agreements. However, the court found that the District Court had erred in the amount awarded to the respondent and adjusted the amount accordingly. The court declined the appeal, except for varying the sum owed by the appellant to the respondent and awarding interest. The court awarded costs on a 2B basis to the respondent.

Orders