John Austin Limited v CTrack Limited - [2014] NZHC 2687

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2013-404-5105 [2014] NZHC 2687

BETWEEN
JOHN AUSTIN LIMITED

Plaintiff

AND

CTRACK LIMITED First Defendant

RENT PLUS LIMITED Second Defendant

Hearing: 28 October 2014

Appearances:

G Wilkin for plaintiff
P M Hunter for second defendant

Judgment:

31 October 2014

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on application by second defendant for summary judgment and/or strike out]

This judgment was delivered by me on 31 October 2014 at 11 am, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

JOHN AUSTIN LTD v CTRACK LTD [2014] NZHC 2687 [31 October 2014]

[1] The plaintiff in this proceeding, John Austin Limited (John Austin), is an agricultural contractor operating more than 60 vehicles, including tractors and combine harvesters.

[2] In 2009 and 2010, John Austin acquired a digital tracking system designed to assist in the management of its vehicle fleet. John Austin alleges that the system subsequently failed, and that it has been forced to acquire another tracking system in its place. In this proceeding it seeks to recover its consequential losses from the defendants.

[3] The second defendant, Rent Plus Limited (“Rent Plus”) has applied for an order granting it summary judgment against the plaintiff. In the alternative, it seeks an order striking out John Austin’s claims against it on the basis that they are not legally tenable. John Austin opposes both applications.

Relevant principles

Defendant’s application for summary judgment

[4] The principles that the Court must apply in this context are now well established through cases such Attorney-General v Jones1 and Westpac Banking Corporation v MM Kembla Ltd.2 In the latter case Elias CJ said:

[64] The defendant bears the onus of satisfying the Court that none of the claims can succeed. It is not necessary for the plaintiff to put up evidence at all although, if the defendant supplies evidence which would satisfy the Court that the claim cannot succeed, a plaintiff will usually have to respond with credible evidence of its own. Even then it is perhaps unhelpful to describe the effect as one where an onus is transferred. At the end of the day, the Court must be satisfied that none of the claims can succeed. It is not enough that they are shown to have weaknesses. The assessment made by the Court on interlocutory application is not one to be arrived at on a fine balance of the available evidence, such as is appropriate at trial.

[5] The critical issue is therefore whether any of the plaintiff’s claims can succeed. If any reach that threshold, all of the claims must be permitted to proceed to trial.

Defendant’s application for strike out

[6] The principles to be applied in strike out applications are similarly well established through cases such as Attorney-General v Prince & Gardner3 and Attorney-General v McVeagh.4 In short, the discretion to strike out a plaintiff’s claim is one that is sparingly exercised and usually only in the clearest of cases. The Court…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read John Austin Limited v CTrack Limited and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] NZHC 2687
Decision Date: 31 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In John Austin Limited v CTrack Limited, the plaintiff, John Austin Limited, sought to recover its losses from the defendants, CTrack Limited and Rent Plus Limited, due to the failure of a digital tracking system that John Austin had acquired for its vehicle fleet. Rent Plus applied for summary judgment against John Austin, arguing that John Austin's claims were not legally tenable. The court examined the contractual framework between the parties and found that the agreements between John Austin and Rent Plus explicitly excluded Rent Plus from any liability for defects in the operation of the equipment. Additionally, the court found that Rent Plus was not liable for any representations made by Minorplanet, the manufacturer of the equipment, to John Austin prior to the contractual arrangement with Rent Plus. The court held that it was fair and reasonable for Rent Plus to rely on the exclusion clauses contained in the Master Rental Agreement and the two Rental Schedules. Therefore, the court granted summary judgment in favour of Rent Plus against John Austin and ordered John Austin to pay Rent Plus's costs on a Category 2B basis, together with disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.

Orders