Jones v Hawkins - [2022] NZHC 1965

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CIV-2020-419-329

[2022] NZHC 1965

BETWEEN
GREGORY JOHN JONES

Applicant

AND

JANET HAWKINS, AMANDA JANE VOSPER and DESMOND DAVID HAWKINS

Respondents

Hearing: 2 August 2022

Appearances:

G J Jones in person

D O’Neill for Respondents

Judgment:

10 August 2022

JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J

(Application for leave to issue third and subsequent party notices)

This judgment was delivered by Justice Wylie On 10 August 2022 at 10.00 am
Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:…………………………

Solicitors/counsel:
Vosper Law, Cambridge/D M O’Neill, Hamilton

Copy to: G J Jones

JONES v HAWKINS [2022] NZHC 1965 [10 August 2022]

Introduction

[1] The applicant, Gregory Jones, is the defendant in a proceeding brought by the respondents, Janet Hawkins, Amanda Vosper and Desmond Hawkins. He has filed an interlocutory application in the proceeding seeking leave to issue third and subsequent party notices against 11 individuals/entities. The application is opposed by the respondents.

The background

[2] Mr Jones is a barrister based in Auckland. For many years he was also involved in the bloodstock industry – breeding, racing and trading in thoroughbred horses.

[3] The respondents are the trustees of two trusts which together trade as the Llanhennock Trust Partnership. At all relevant times, the Llanhennock Trust Partnership carried on business as agisters and horse breeders under the name Wentwood Grange.

[4] In November 2018, the respondents commenced the proceeding in the District Court at Hamilton. They alleged that:

(a)from May 2011, Mr Jones placed a number of horses with them “for breeding and caring purposes and agistment”;

(b)there was an agreement between them and Mr Jones pursuant to which they would care for his horses and provide agistment, storage and stud services as required. Mr Jones would be charged agistment fees and for other costs associated with the care of his horses and he would pay invoices rendered by the 20th of the month following;

(c)Mr Jones fell behind in the payments due to be made by him;

(d)various assurances were given to them by Mr Jones that payment would be made but he failed to honour these assurances;

(e)they have not been paid by Mr Jones. They seek judgment against him in the sum of $165,949.53 (together with interest).

[5]Mr Jones has filed a statement of defence and a counterclaim.

[6]In his statement of defence, Mr Jones:

(a)accepted that he and the respondents entered into an agreement;

(b)alleged that, pursuant to the agreement, the respondents were to carry out:

… thoroughbred agistment services and … provide [him] with advice in relation to the health and welfare of his horses together with advice in relation to all of the logistics of the thoroughbred breeding enterprise owned by [the first respondents].

(c)admitted that he has not paid various invoices sent to him by the respondents;

(d)said that sometime after May 2008, he became aware that the respondents were not acting in good faith and in his…

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 Jones v Hawkins 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: [2022] NZHC 1965
Decision Date: 10 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Jones v Hawkins [2022] NZHC 1965, the applicant, Gregory Jones, sought leave to issue third and subsequent party notices against 11 individuals and entities in relation to a proceeding brought by the respondents, Janet Hawkins, Amanda Vosper and Desmond Hawkins. The respondents alleged that Jones failed to pay invoices rendered to him in respect of the care of horses placed with them for agistment and stud services. Jones filed a statement of defence and a counterclaim, alleging that the respondents entered into an agreement with him for the care of his horses, but that they failed to honour their obligations under that agreement. He further alleged that the respondents, along with the proposed third parties, conspired to cause him financial harm. Jones sought leave to issue third party notices out of time, which was opposed by the respondents. The court considered the relevant law and principles governing the application of Rule 4.4 of the High Court Rules 2016, which provides for the issue of third (and subsequent) party notices. The court found that the application was flawed, as Jones was not entitled to a contribution or indemnity from the proposed third parties, nor was there a clear connection between the relief or remedy claimed by Jones against the proposed third parties and the relief claimed against him by the respondents. The court also found that the application was an abuse of the Court's process, as Jones had been primarily responsible for much of the delay that had already occurred in the proceeding, and that his allegations of conspiracy were speculative and lacked any tenable basis. The court declined to grant leave to Jones to issue third and subsequent party notices out of time, and ordered that the proceeding be placed in the mentions list to set a timetable for hearing. The respondents were awarded their reasonable costs and disbursements.

Orders