Laywood v Holmes Construction Wellington Ltd

For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 23/2009
[2009] NZSC 44

BETWEENIAN LAYWOOD AND GARY REES

Applicants

ANDHOLMES CONSTRUCTION WELLINGTON LTD

Respondent

Court:Blanchard, Tipping and McGrath JJ
Counsel:R B Hucker for Applicants

D M Hughes and K A Van Houtte for Respondent

Judgment:15 May 2009

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.

REASONS

[1]       The applicants seek leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal[1] concerning several questions raised in relation to the registration in a District Court of an adjudicator’s determinations under the Construction Contracts Act 2002.
[1]Laywood v Holmes Construction Wellington Ltd [2009] NZCA 35 (CA 83/08, Glazebrook, O’Regan and Arnold JJ).
[2]       Although the matters in issue are of general practical significance and would otherwise meet the criteria for leave, we find the judgment below compelling and consider that the proposed appeal has no prospect of success on any of the grounds advanced on behalf of the applicants.
[3]       It is therefore not necessary in the interests of justice for this Court to hear the appeal.
Solicitors:
Hucker & Associates, Auckland for Applicants
Kensington Swan, Auckland for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Laywood and Gary Rees sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal concerning the registration of an adjudicator’s determination under the Construction Contracts Act 2002. The determinations had been made by an adjudicator in a dispute between the applicants and Holmes Construction Wellington Ltd. The Court of Appeal had already considered the matter, and the applicants now sought to appeal that decision to the Supreme Court. The applicants argued that the Court of Appeal had erred in its interpretation of the Act and in the application of certain legal principles.

The key legal issues in this case were the interpretation and application of the Construction Contracts Act 2002, particularly in relation to the registration of an adjudicator's determination in a District Court. The applicants argued that the Court of Appeal had misinterpreted the Act and made errors in its reasoning. They also contended that there were significant questions of law that needed to be addressed by the Supreme Court. The respondents, Holmes Construction Wellington Ltd, opposed the application for leave to appeal, asserting that the Court of Appeal's judgment was correct and that the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Supreme Court, consisting of Blanchard, Tipping, and McGrath JJ, carefully considered the arguments presented by both parties. The Court found that the Court of Appeal's judgment was compelling and that the proposed appeal did not meet the criteria for leave to appeal. The Supreme Court concluded that the appeal had no prospect of success on any of the grounds advanced by the applicants. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and costs of $2,500 were awarded to the respondents.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established