Mulholland v Hansen - [2015] NZHC 895

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2014-404-3233 [2015] NZHC 895

UNDER the District Courts Act 1947

IN THE MATTER

of an appeal from a decision of the District
Court at North Shore (held at Auckland)

BETWEEN

WILLIAM FREDERICK MULHOLLAND Appellant

AND

PATRICK GRAHAM HANSEN Respondent

Hearing: 23 April 2015

Appearances:

S Barter for the Appellant
DMJ Jones for the Respondent

Judgment:

1 May 2015

JUDGMENT OF MUIR J

This judgment was delivered by me on 1 May 2015 at 3:30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:………………………….

Counsel/Solicitors:
S Barter, Barter & Co, North Shore City
DMJ Jones, Kumeu-Huapai Law Centre, Kumeu

MULHOLLAND v HANSEN [2015] NZHC 895 [1 May 2015]

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal from a decision of the District Court declining a counterclaim by the appellant for the sum of $50,000. That claim had been advanced in contract and quantum meruit in response to a claim by the respondent for recovery of monies loaned to him. The respondent’s claim had been prior resolved with entry of a judgment in his favour.

[2] A number of points on appeal are advanced with the primary arguments being:

(a) that although the District Court had correctly found a contract between the appellant and the respondent for the appellant to be paid a sum of $50,000 for services rendered, it had incorrectly identified a variation of that contract which effectively precluded the claim; and

(b)that the District Court was in error in terms of the evidence required to support a quantum meruit claim.

Background

[3] The respondent, together with his brother and sister had some years earlier inherited a farm property in the Hellensville area owned by their parents for many years.

[4] The respondent had been the principal occupant of the property although there was a second dwelling occupied from time to time by his brother Mr John Hansen. The property was in a deteriorated condition with the capacity only to support one person and, even then, an inability to service existing borrowings. In consequence, interest on outstanding loans had simply capitalised year on year with the total outstanding amount at the beginning of 2010 being approximately
$565,000.

[5] There was, however, still significant equity in the property which was valued in excess of $3 million.

[6] By the beginning of 2010, Mr John Hansen had become dissatisfied with the status quo. He was receiving no income from the property and his equity in it was being eroded by accumulating interest. He was also concerned about the disrepair into which the property had fallen. As a result he refused consent to a further rollover of the mortgage and a Property Law Act notice was issued.

[7] The appellant deposed in his principal affidavit that he had been told by the respondent that his brother had an ulterior motive to withholding his consent namely that he wanted to purchase the property himself at mortgagee sale and at a discount. The issue…

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 Mulholland v Hansen

Details

AGLC: Mulholland v Hansen [2015] NZHC 895
Case: [2015] NZHC 895
Decision Date: 1 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Mulholland v Hansen [2015] NZHC 895 was brought by William Mulholland against a decision of the District Court declining a counterclaim by Mulholland for the sum of $50,000. The District Court had found a contract between Mulholland and Hansen for Mulholland to be paid a sum for services rendered, but had incorrectly identified a variation of that contract which precluded the claim. Mulholland argued that the District Court had erred in finding a variation of the contract and in terms of the evidence required to support a quantum meruit claim. The High Court dismissed the appeal and lifted the stay in respect of the respondent’s judgment against the appellant. The Court held that the exchange of emails could not be interpreted as a contract to pay a success fee of $50,000 to Mulholland. The High Court found that the appellant had not established a contractual entitlement to be paid his fee of $50,000 by Hansen. The Court also found that there was inadequate evidence to support a quantum meruit claim. Costs were awarded to the respondent on a 1B basis.

In Mulholland v Hansen, the appeal was brought by Mulholland against a decision of the District Court declining a counterclaim by Mulholland for the sum of $50,000. The District Court had found a contract between Mulholland and Hansen for Mulholland to be paid a sum for services rendered, but had incorrectly identified a variation of that contract which precluded the claim. The primary arguments advanced were that the District Court had erred in finding a variation of the contract and in terms of the evidence required to support a quantum meruit claim. The High Court dismissed the appeal and lifted the stay in respect of the respondent’s judgment against the appellant. The Court held that the exchange of emails could not be interpreted as a contract to pay a success fee of $50,000 to Mulholland. The Court found that the appellant had not established a contractual entitlement to be paid his fee of $50,000 by Hansen. The Court also found that there was inadequate evidence to support a quantum meruit claim. Costs were awarded to the respondent on a 1B basis.

Orders