Krammer v Lukes - [2018] NZHC 3016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND BLENHEIM REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WAIHARAKEKE ROHE

CIV-2018-406-15

[2018] NZHC 3016

BETWEEN
MICHAEL COLIN KRAMMER

Appellant

AND

SALLY MARNA LUKES

Respondent

Hearing: 7 August 2018 (via AVL)

Appearances:

Q A M Davies and J S Marshall for Appellant

M Hardy-Jones and N J McKessar for Respondent

Judgment:

21 November 2018

JUDGMENT OF CLARK J

[1]Ms Lukes applied for summary judgment in respect of an alleged debt of

$45,000 which, Ms Lukes says, she advanced to Mr Krammer by way of a loan. On 6 April 2018 Judge Zohrab gave summary judgment for Ms Lukes with interest running from the first time Ms Lukes formally demanded payment from Mr Krammer.1 In the Judge’s view, it defied common sense to suggest the parties ever contemplated there would be no repayment if an investment to which they each contributed did not come to fruition.2

[2] Mr Krammer appeals the District Court judgment. This judgment determines Mr Krammer’s appeal.

1 Lukes v Krammer [2018] NZDC 6736.
2 At [26].

KRAMMER v LUKES [2018] NZHC 3016 [21 November 2018]

Background

[3] Mr Krammer and Ms Lukes met in 2004. Their romantic relationship lasted approximately 10 years. Towards the end of 2013 Ms Lukes told Mr Krammer of an investment proposal her friend, Kevin Caffrey, had commended to her.

[4]The proposal involved Mr Caffrey investing $500,000, Ms Lukes investing

$200,000 and Mr Krammer, $300,000. Mr Krammer and Ms Lukes anticipated a return on their investment of some $4 million, of which Ms Lukes would receive $3 million. Apparently, the disparity recognised Ms Lukes’ efforts in completing the investment arrangements.

[5] Around early June 2014 Mr Krammer went with Ms Lukes to his bank. He broke a term deposit to obtain his $300,000 contribution to the investment. Mr Krammer tried to transfer the $300,000 from his account into an account into which Mr Caffrey directed the money should be deposited. This account was with the Santander Bank but the money was frozen by Santander Bank in London. Eventually Mr Caffrey was able to obtain release of the funds although, according to Mr Krammer’s evidence, more money had to be given to obtain the release.

[6] At that point, Mr Krammer no longer wanted anything to do with the investment but Ms Lukes insisted he should continue otherwise she and Mr Caffrey would lose the $200,000 and $500,000 they respectively had paid. As Ms Lukes had successfully transferred her funds into the account which Mr Caffrey nominated she and Mr Krammer agreed he would withdraw $300,000 from his account and deposit it into Ms Lukes’ account. Ms Lukes then sent the money on Mr Krammer’s behalf. The investment proposal turned out to be a scam. Neither party knew that until after October 2014.

[7] Meanwhile, Mr Krammer had ordered an SSV Holden Commodore Utility vehicle built to his specifications. Some of the purchase price was paid at the time of the order but the balance of $45,000…

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 Krammer v Lukes

Details

AGLC: Krammer v Lukes [2018] NZHC 3016
Case: [2018] NZHC 3016
Decision Date: 21 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand heard an appeal by Michael Colin Krammer against a summary judgment granted to Sally Marna Lukes for an alleged debt of $45,000. Ms Lukes claimed she loaned Mr Krammer the money under an agreement that he would repay it when they received a return on an investment they made together, which later proved to be a scam. Mr Krammer argued that the repayment was conditional on the return from the investment, and he had no defence to Ms Lukes' claim as the investment had not crystallised. The court had to determine whether Ms Lukes successfully demonstrated that Mr Krammer had no defence to her claim, and if the summary judgment was appropriate. The key issue was whether the loan agreement between the parties was conditional on the return from the investment or if it was payable on demand. The court found that there was a genuine dispute over the terms of the loan agreement, and the matter required a full trial to determine the nature of the obligations and the actual contractual position between the parties. The court also considered the close relationship between the parties and the circumstances surrounding the loan agreement. The appeal was allowed, and the summary judgment was set aside as there were disputed issues of material fact that needed to be resolved through a trial.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was allowed, and the summary judgment granted to Ms Lukes was set aside. Costs were to lie where they fall, as Mr Krammer was legally aided and there were no exceptional circumstances justifying an award of costs.

Orders