Peck v Grasshopper Lawnmowing Services Limited - [2018] NZHC 2615

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2018-404-980

[2018] NZHC 2615

IN THE MATTER of an appeal under section 124 of the District Court Act 2016

BETWEEN

JASON PECK

Appellant

AND

GRASSHOPPER LAWNMOWING SERVICES LIMITED

Respondent

Hearing: 4 October 2018

Appearances:

P McCutcheon for the Appellant E Taia for the Respondent

Judgment:

8 October 2018

JUDGMENT OF GORDON J

This judgment was delivered by me
on 8 October 2018 at 3.00 pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

Solicitors: P McCutcheon, Auckland
Franklin Law, Pukekohe, Auckland

PECK v GRASSHOPPER LAWNMOWING SERVICES LTD [2018] NZHC 2615 [8 October 2018]

Introduction

[1] On 6 January 2011, GT & SJ Peck Ltd (Peck), the first plaintiff in the District Court, entered into a contract with the defendant, Grasshopper Lawnmowing Services Ltd (Grasshopper). Under the contract, Grasshopper sold to Peck the right to mow the lawns at various commercial properties in the greater Auckland area. In return, Peck paid Grasshopper $30,000 at the outset. Grasshopper was also to receive 20 per cent of the payment for the various jobs undertaken from the commencement date of the contract, 1 February 2011.

[2] In early 2014, Peck assigned the contract to Jaslin Enterprises NZ Ltd (Jaslin), the second plaintiff in the District Court. Jason Peck, the third plaintiff in the District Court, is the sole director of Jaslin. Mr Peck and his wife jointly own Jaslin.

[3] In early 2016, just prior to the expiry of the five-year term of the contract, Jaslin cancelled the contract.

[4] Peck, Jaslin and Mr Peck brought proceedings against Grasshopper. It was alleged that Grasshopper breached various terms of the contract, including that Grasshopper did not pay the plaintiffs correctly for work completed under the contract.

[5] Mr Peck’s claim was based on the tort of deceit. He alleged that Grasshopper, through its director Peter Luxford, overpromised or created a false impression of the business, and its intentions or strategies, to induce reliance and sell the contract.

[6] Grasshopper applied to strike out portions of the claim by Peck and Jaslin, and the entirety of the claim by Mr Peck based on the tort of deceit.

[7] In the District Court at Auckland on 26 April 2018, Judge Harrison relevantly struck out Mr Peck’s claim.1

[8]Mr Peck now appeals that decision.

1 GT & SJ Peck Ltd v Grasshopper Lawnmowing Services Ltd [2018] NZDC 7333.

Factual background

[9] Peck is owned by Mr Peck’s parents. Mr Peck has a background in commercial lawnmowing, and wanted to use that background to make money.

[10] Prior to the signing of the contract, Mr Peck and his parents agreed that since Mr Peck did not have the money to buy a business at the time, his parents would buy a lawnmowing business through Peck for Mr Peck to work in, and Mr Peck would take ownership of the business when he was financially able to repay…

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 Peck v Grasshopper Lawnmowing Services 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: [2018] NZHC 2615
Decision Date: 8 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jason Peck appeals against the decision of the District Court, which struck out his claim for deceit against Grasshopper Lawnmowing Services Limited. Peck alleges that Grasshopper made false representations about future conduct, which induced him to enter into a contract. Grasshopper argues that the claim should be dismissed as it does not meet the requirements for the tort of deceit. The appeal raises questions about the application of the tort of deceit, the pleading of fraud or dishonesty, and the ability to amend pleadings. The High Court finds that the appeal should be dismissed, as the claim fails to meet the necessary legal criteria and lacks sufficient evidence to support the allegations of deceit. The court also finds that the claim is statute-barred and does not qualify as an ancillary claim. As a result, the appeal is dismissed, and costs are awarded to Grasshopper.

Orders