Rebnik Properties Limited v Dobbs - [2020] NZHC 3494

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV 2015-404-000964

[2020] NZHC 3494

BETWEEN
REBNIK PROPERTIES LIMITED

Plaintiff

AND

TROY JOHN DOBBS

First Defendant

AND

ALUMINIUM REPAIRS LIMITED

Second Defendant

CIV 2015-404-001602

BETWEEN

ALUMINIUM REPAIRS LIMITED

First Plaintiff

AND

TROY JOHN DOBBS

Second Plaintiff

AND

MICHAEL GRANT RING

Defendant

Hearing:
24 August – 28 August 2020

31 August – 3 September 2020
8 September – 9 September 2020

Appearances:

D R Bigio QC and A J Steel for the Plaintiff/Defendants

C R Andrews and K T O’Halloran for the Defendants/Plaintiffs

Judgment:

22 December 2020

JUDGMENT OF CAMPBELL J

This judgment was delivered by me on 22 December 2020 at 10.30am Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………………
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

REBNIK PROPERTIES LIMITED v DOBBS [2020] NZHC 3494 [22 December 2020]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

[Para]

Introduction 1

Factual narrative 6

Mr Ring’s St Heliers property 7

Initial dealing in 2007 11

Further dealings in 2008 and 2009 17
Entry into the construction contract in issue 21

May 2011 exchange of emails: scope of works and pricing 26

Invoicing June–September 2011 33

September 2011: expansion of scope of works 36

September 2011: a new hourly rate for “techs”  41
October and November 2011: scope of works expanded – decks  45
Initial timelines for completion: mid-January to April 2012  47

March 2012: scope of works expanded – resealing roofs  51
Further timelines for completion: June 2012 through to October 2012                52
October 2012: work on main roof is postponed  62
Some work added after Christmas 2012  64
Overpayment of 7 March 2013 invoice  66
April and May 2013 progress  67

Work added mid-2013 69
August 2013: new invoicing, and further work 70

Moving towards completion 72

Termination 79

Assignment to Rebnik 83

The pleadings 84

Rebnik’s claim against Mr Dobbs or ARL 84
ARL’s and Mr Dobbs’ claim against Mr Ring 90

The issues 92

Assuming there is liability to Rebnik, which of Mr Dobbs or ARL is liable? 98

Introduction  98
Rules in the general law of agency  102
Section 25 of the Companies Act 1993  110

The parties’ submissions 114
When did the parties enter into the contract? 118

Did Mr Dobbs disclose the agency prior to or at the time of entry into the
contract? 122
Subsequent (post-contract) conduct indicating that Mr Dobbs was acting for ARL

138

Summary of Mr Dobbs’ liability under the general law 146

Section 25 Companies Act 1993 147

Was it an implied term of the contract that Mr Dobbs/ARL would charge
Mr Ring only a reasonable price for the work?  148
Introduction  148
Decision  153
Summary  166

What was a reasonable price for the work? 167

The approach to assessing a reasonable price  167
An overview of the expert evidence  171
The quantity surveyors’ assessments of a reasonable price  183

Core work, including adjustment for Mr Dobbs’ scope 186

Allowance for core work as a whole 218

Preliminaries and general 223

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 Rebnik Properties Limited v Dobbs 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: [2020] NZHC 3494
Decision Date: 22 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Rebnik Properties Limited v Dobbs, the plaintiff, Rebnik Properties Ltd, sought to recover an overpayment made to the defendants, Mr Dobbs and Aluminium Repairs Ltd (ARL), for construction work done on the plaintiff's property. The Court found that Mr Dobbs, who was acting on behalf of ARL, was liable to the plaintiff for the overpayment, and that the amount of the overpayment was $845,965.32. The Court determined that there was an implied term in the contract that the plaintiff would only pay a reasonable price for the work, and that the reasonable price for the work was $1,618,260. The Court also found that the plaintiff was not estopped from pursuing the claim, and that the plaintiff was not liable to pay the final two invoices. The Court awarded interest on the judgment sum from 7 July 2014 at rates calculated in accordance with the internet site calculator maintained under s 13 of the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016, but not exceeding five per cent per annum.

Orders