Pool v Eggers - [2015] NZHC 620

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

CIV-2014-443-000019 [2015] NZHC 620

BETWEEN
HELEN ANNE POOL

Plaintiff

AND

KATHLEEN VERONICA EGGERS Defendant

Hearing: 25 March 2015

Appearances:

S W Hughes QC for Plaintiff
No appearance by or on behalf of Defendant

Judgment:

31 March 2015

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 31 March 2015 at 2:00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: Shaun Gifford (New Plymouth) for Plaintiff
(Defendant in person)

Counsel: Susan Hughes QC

POOL v EGGERS [2015] NZHC 620 [31 March 2015]

Introduction

[1] Mrs Eggers is being sued to account for money which it is pleaded she holds on a constructive trust, in part for Mrs Pool. Mrs Eggers has applied for the trial of the case to be before a Judge sitting with a jury. This judgment decides whether there will be a jury in this case.1

Discussion

[2] Section 19A of the Judicature Act 1908 (“the Act”) provides that certain civil proceedings may be tried by a jury. Civil proceedings to which the section applies are those “in which the only relief claimed is payment of a debt or pecuniary damages or the recovery of chattels”.

[3] The issue I have to decide is whether a claim for money allegedly held pursuant to a trust is a claim for payment of a debt or a claim for pecuniary damages.

[4] Section 19A preserves the rights of litigants who come to the Court in its common law jurisdiction, to have certain claims heard before a jury. Such a right existed in the common law courts in England prior to the passage of the Judicature Acts of 1873 and 1875 (collectively, the Judicature Acts)2 which provided for a single Court which could administer both common law and equity. The Judicature Acts preserved the right to a trial by jury in cases which fell within the traditional
jurisdiction of the common law Courts, but did not extend it to matters which fell within the Court’s equitable jurisdiction.3 This right, which initially required all questions of fact to be determined by a jury, was significantly narrowed by the rules
of 1883 which limited the availability of a jury to certain specified cases. These

1      Mrs Eggers represents herself. There was no need for her to apply for the trial to be before a Judge sitting with a jury. Giving notice under s 19A(2) of the Judicature Act 1908 is sufficient (if the section applies). I will treat her application as the requisite notice and Mrs Pool’s notice of opposition as an application under s 19(5).
2      Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873 (UK) 36 & 37 Vict c 66; Supreme Court of Judicature Act
1875 (UK) 38 & 39 Vict c 77.
3      However, the Judicature Acts did preserve the power of the Court at equity to submit questions of fact to a jury at its own discretion. See Coker v Farwell (1729) 1 Swans 403, 36…

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 Pool v Eggers 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: [2015] NZHC 620
Decision Date: 31 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand considered an application by Kathleen Veronica Eggers to have her trial for an alleged breach of a constructive trust be held before a judge and jury. Helen Anne Pool sued Eggers for an account of money she claimed Eggers held on trust for her. Eggers applied for a jury trial, but did not appear at the hearing. The court had to decide whether the claim for an account of money held on trust could be tried by a jury under section 19A of the Judicature Act 1908. The court held that claims for equitable relief, such as an account of money held on trust, do not fall within the traditional jurisdiction of the common law courts and so are not eligible for a jury trial under section 19A. Even though the Judicature Acts merged the common law and equity courts, a claim for an account of money held on trust remains distinct from claims for debt or pecuniary damages. Therefore, the court decided the case would be tried by a judge alone without a jury.

The court further found that even if section 19A did apply, the proviso in section 19A(5)(a) would still preclude a jury trial. The case involved mainly difficult questions of law regarding whether a constructive trust existed, which was a decision better made by a judge. While there were issues of fact that could be resolved by a jury, the crucial decision was whether Eggers stood as trustee for Pool, which required careful weighing of competing legal principles. Therefore, the court ordered the trial proceed before a judge alone without a jury. The court reserved ruling on costs until after the trial.

Orders