Rural Builders Limited v Sinclair - [2025] NZHC 233

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CIV-2024-454-22 CIV-2024-454-23

[2025] NZHC 233

UNDER the District Courts Act 2016

BETWEEN

RURAL BUILDERS LIMITED

Appellant

AND

LUMBERLAND 2006 LIMITED

Second Appellant

AND

JEREMY SINCLAIR AND

LIA SYLVIA NGAHUIA SINCLAIR

Respondent

Hearing: 18 February 2025

Counsel:

A M Swan for Appellant

G Paine for Second Appellant
S J Iorns and J C Sylvester for Respondent

Judgment:

20 February 2025

JUDGMENT OF ISAC J

[Reasons for dismissing fresh evidence application]

Introduction

[1] Rural Builders Ltd and Lumberland 2006 Ltd appeal decisions of the District Court finding them liable for breach of contract, and costs.1 As part of their cross appeal, Mr and Mrs Sinclair seek leave to adduce fresh evidence.

1 Sinclair v Rural Builders Ltd & Ors [2024] NZDC 4150 (liability judgment); Sinclair v Rural Builders Ltd & Ors [2024] NZDC 19918 (costs judgment).

RURAL BUILDERS LTD v LUMBERLAND 2006 LTD & ORS [2025] NZHC 233 [20 February 2025]

[2] The appeals came before me on 18 February 2025. I expressed concern to counsel that liability judgments comfortably within the statutory jurisdiction of the Disputes Tribunal had occupied five days of hearing in the District Court and were about to occupy a day of argument in the High Court. Following discussion between the parties, I was advised that if I determined Mr and Mrs Sinclair’s fresh evidence application, that would determine whether the appeals would be pursued.

[3] Having been assisted by Mr Iorns in relation to relevant the circumstances leading to Mr and Mrs Sinclair’s fresh evidence application, I declined it in open court. My reasons now follow.

The background in brief

[4] In April 2018, Mr and Mrs Sinclair engaged Rural Builders and Lumberland to supply and install a kitset pole shed. The total quoted cost for construction was
$28,652.25. The shed was to be used by Mr and Mrs Sinclair as part of their business.2

[5] The Sinclairs were dissatisfied with the quality of the building work. Proceedings between the parties began in the Disputes Tribunal in late 2018 and mushroomed from there. They eventually ended in a civil trial before Judge Hinton in the District Court in May and June 2023.

[6] On 29 February 2024, in a careful judgment running to 98 paragraphs, Judge Hinton entered judgment against each of the appellants in the sum of $22,500 for breach of contract.3 He also awarded general damages against each of the builders in the sum of $5,000. A separate claim in negligence by the Sinclairs appears not to have been pursued at trial, and was dismissed.4 A separate head of damages claimed by the Sinclairs for loss of income was also dismissed.5 It is to this aspect of the respondents’ claim in the District Court that the fresh evidence application is directed.

2 The Sinclairs paid a separate sum for the kitset of $47,332.80.
3 Sinclair v Rural Builders Ltd & Anor [2024] NZDC 4150 (liability judgment)…

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 Rural Builders Limited v Sinclair

Details

AGLC: Rural Builders Limited v Sinclair [2025] NZHC 233
Case: [2025] NZHC 233
Decision Date: 20 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rural Builders Limited and Lumberland 2006 Limited appealed the District Court's decision finding them liable for breach of contract and awarding costs to Jeremy and Lia Sylvia Ngarua Sinclair. The Sinclairs sought leave to adduce fresh evidence to support their appeal. The appeal was heard in the High Court on 18 February 2025, with the court expressing concern over the length of the District Court proceedings and the impending additional time required for the appeal. The court ultimately decided that if the fresh evidence application was determined, it would decide whether to pursue the appeals. The court declined the application for leave to adduce fresh evidence, explaining that the proposed evidence was not fresh as it could have been produced at the trial. The court also noted that admitting the evidence would trigger substantial relitigation and would be contrary to the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of the proceeding. The court further explained that the absence of freshness was not an absolute bar to the admission of evidence on appeal, but the circumstances needed to be exceptional and the grounds compelling. In this case, the Sinclairs were well short of reaching the threshold for admission of the evidence on appeal.

The court concluded that it was not in the interests of justice to grant leave to the Sinclairs to adduce the proposed evidence in support of their appeal. The application to adduce fresh evidence was dismissed, and in light of the parties’ subsequent resolution of all issues in the appeals, including costs, there was no order for costs.

Orders