Rangly Developments Limited v JCL Equities Limited - [2024] NZHC 2774

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2024-409-000163

[2024] NZHC 2774

BETWEEN
RANGLY DEVELOPMENTS LTD

Appellant

AND

JCL EQUITIES LTD

Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

B G Walker for Appellant

H C Matthews for Respondent

Judgment:

25 September 2024

JUDGMENT OF EATON J

(extending time to pay security for costs)

This judgment was delivered by me on …….. at ……… pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

RANGLY DEVELOPMENTS LTD v JCL EQUITIES LTD [2024] NZHC 2774 [25 September 2024]

[1] The respondent brought proceedings against the appellant in the District Court seeking a refund of a deposit on the purchase of a residential property. The appellant sought summary judgment on the grounds that none of the pleaded causes of action could succeed. In a reserve judgment dated 15 March 2024, Judge Kelly dismissed the application for security of costs. The appellant has since filed an appeal against that decision.

[2] An issue has arisen as regards payment of security for costs and the consequential status of this appeal.

Procedural history and submissions

[3] By consent memorandum that gave rise to judicial directions, security for costs in the sum of $1,195 was due for payment within 10 working days of 9 May 2024. The appellant failed to pay the security within that timeframe. This failure was through no fault of the appellant. Mr Walker, counsel for the appellant, had agreed to make the payment for the appellant, but due to oversight omitted to do so. Security for costs was ultimately paid on 13 June 2024.

[4] On 25 June, Mr Matthews for the respondent wrote to Mr Walker recording that security for costs had not been paid by the due date, with reference to rule 20.13(3) of the High Court Rules 2016 (the Rules) and s 126(3) of the District Court Act 2016 and that the appeal was deemed to have been abandoned. Mr Walker responded confirming that the omission was counsel’s oversight. He referred to SNB Holdings Ltd v Slabbert as authority for the Court to retrospectively extend the time to pay security under r 1.19 of the High Court Rules 2016.1

[5] Unfortunately, Mr Walker’s email did not resolve the impasse. Mr Walker then filed a memorandum dated 19 August 2024 informing the Court of the issue and confirming that the appellant wished to continue with the appeal rather than abandon it and file a fresh appeal. Mr Walker submitted that the Court has, and should exercise, its jurisdiction to extend time in relation to the requirement to pay security as it did in Slabbert, because the respondent has not suffered any prejudice.

1 SNB Holdings Ltd v Slabbert [2024] NZHC 492.

[6] In a reply memorandum dated 21 August 2024, Mr Matthews submitted that the appeal must be deemed abandoned by operation of s 126(3) of the District Court Act. In any event, acknowledging Mr Walker’s reliance on Slabbert

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 Rangly Developments Limited v JCL Equities Limited

Details

AGLC: Rangly Developments Limited v JCL Equities Limited [2024] NZHC 2774
Case: [2024] NZHC 2774
Decision Date: 25 September 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Rangly Developments Limited (appellant) appealed against a decision of the District Court in which it had sought a refund of a deposit on the purchase of a residential property. JCL Equities Limited (respondent) brought the proceedings in the District Court, and the appellant sought summary judgment, which was dismissed. The appellant then appealed the dismissal to the High Court. The appellant failed to pay security for costs by the required date, resulting in the appeal being deemed abandoned. The appellant sought an extension of time to pay the security for costs and to continue with the appeal.

The court had to determine whether it had the jurisdiction to extend the time for the payment of security for costs under rule 1.19 of the High Court Rules 2016 and whether such an extension should be granted in the circumstances. The court referenced previous cases, including SNB Holdings Ltd v Slabbert, to find that the court indeed had the jurisdiction to extend the time for payment of security for costs. The court also found that the appellant's failure to pay the security was due to an oversight by counsel and not the appellant. The court noted that the appellant was not at fault and had paid the security immediately upon discovering the oversight. There was no prejudice to the respondent. The security amount was relatively small compared to the likely costs of appeal, and there was no suggestion that the appeal was not bona fide.

The court decided to grant the extension of time for payment of security for costs, finding that the appellant's failure to pay was inadvertent, and the appellant was not at fault. The court also found that there was no prejudice to the respondent and that the appeal was genuine. The court extended the time for payment of security for costs and allowed the appeal to proceed as scheduled. The court also decided that there was no need to impose additional security.

Orders