Roberts v Stephens - [2025] NZHC 2498

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2025-409-292

[2025] NZHC 2498

BETWEEN
CHRISTOPHER ANDREW ROBERTS

Plaintiff

AND

TARINA MARIE STEPHENS

Defendant

Hearing: 21 August 2025

Appearances:

Plaintiff in person

C F Olds for Defendant

Judgment:

29 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE PAULSEN

This judgment was delivered by me on 29 August 2025 at 12.00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

ROBERTS v STEPHENS [2025] NZHC 2498 [29 August 2025]

[1] This is a plaintiff’s application for summary judgment. The plaintiff (Mr Roberts) contends that:

(a)the defendant (Ms Stephens) guaranteed a loan agreement between a Richard Boyle, as lender, and RAP Holdings Ltd (RAP), as borrower;

(b)RAP defaulted under the loan agreement;

(c)Mr Boyle has assigned the benefit of Ms Stephens’ guarantee to him; and

(d)Ms Stephens is indebted to him for $300,000, being the limit of Ms Stephens’ guarantee, along with interest and costs.

[2] Ms Stephens opposes summary judgment. Issues of both law and fact have been raised, including:

(a)Did Ms Stephens provide a guarantee?

(b)Was valid consideration provided for the guarantee?

(c)Is Mr Roberts’ application deficient in failing to disclose evidence of a “separate arrangement” reached between him and Mr Boyle, along with other relevant information?

(d)Was the guarantee validly assigned to Mr Roberts when the right to payment under the loan agreement remains with Mr Boyle?

(e)Is Mr Roberts estopped from seeking enforcement of the guarantee by reason of representations he made to Ms Stephens that it would not be enforced against her?

(f)Should the guarantee be reopened under the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 for oppression, both in terms of having

been induced by oppressive means and enforced in an oppressive manner?

(g)Does Ms Stephens have valid cross-claims against Mr Roberts and RAP which are closely related to Mr Roberts’ claim such that it would be unjust to enter summary judgment.

[3] For the reasons that follow, it is not necessary to deal with all of these issues to determine this application.

A preliminary issue

[4] Shortly prior to the hearing Mr Roberts filed a supplementary affidavit without leave which I have had regard to in arriving at my decision. Following the hearing Mr Roberts has attempted to file two further supplementary affidavits; one from himself and one from Mr Boyle. He says these are to assist the Court to clarify matters raised at the hearing but they are, in fact, intended to resolve deficiencies in his application. Ms Stephens has not had an opportunity to respond to these affidavits and they will not be read.

The facts

[5] Mr Roberts and Ms Stephens have been involved in several business enterprises together, including RAP and Koha Fitness Christchurch Ltd (Koha).

[6] In November 2020, Mr Roberts was the sole director and shareholder in RAP. Ms Stephens no longer had any pecuniary interest in the company. She was at that time a shareholder in Koha. Mr Roberts…

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 Roberts v Stephens

Details

AGLC: Roberts v Stephens [2025] NZHC 2498
Case: [2025] NZHC 2498
Decision Date: 29 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Roberts v Stephens, the plaintiff, Mr Roberts, applied for summary judgment against the defendant, Ms Stephens, claiming she was liable for $300,000 under a guarantee she had provided for a loan to RAP Holdings Ltd, a company in which both parties had previously been involved. Ms Stephens opposed the summary judgment application, raising several defences and questions of fact and law. The court found that there were several arguable defences to Mr Roberts' claim, primarily that the guarantee Ms Stephens signed was not in writing as required by the Property Law Act 2007, and that there was no evidence of consideration for the guarantee. The court also found that Mr Roberts had failed to disclose relevant information about an arrangement between himself and the original lender, Mr Boyle, which might have discharged Ms Stephens' liability under the guarantee. The court concluded that there were genuine issues to be tried and dismissed the application for summary judgment, ordering Mr Roberts to pay Ms Stephens' costs.

Orders