Ruralco NZ Limited v Jones

[2025] NZHC 2652

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2025-409-036

[2025] NZHC 2652

BETWEEN

RURALCO NZ LIMITED

Plaintiff

AND

SIMON JOHN SINCLAIR JONES

First Defendant

MELISSA RUTH JONES

Second Defendant

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	J A Higby for Plaintiff Mr Jones in person
Judgment:	12 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE PAULSEN

This judgment was delivered by me on 12 September 2025 at 10.00 am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

RURALCO NZ LIMITED v JONES [2025] NZHC 2652 [12 September 2025]

[1]    The plaintiff, Ruralco NZ Ltd, is an agricultural co-operative. It applies for summary judgment against the defendants pursuant to personal guarantees given by them in respect to a Ruralco Credit Account, operated initially by Agritech Enterprises Ltd and subsequently transferred to Jones and Associates Ltd (the Credit Account). The application for summary judgment has not been formally opposed, although the defendants have had several opportunities to do so.

[2]    The matter was first scheduled to come before the Court on 20 March 2025 but prior to the hearing the parties filed a joint memorandum which was signed on behalf of the defendants by the first defendant, Mr Jones. The parties sought an adjournment of the summary judgment application “to allow the defendants to [sic] further time to make repayments of the debt owed to the plaintiff” and noted the defendants had arranged for partial repayment of the debt through a third party. By consent, Associate Judge Lester adjourned the summary judgment application to 29 May 2025.

[3]    The parties filed another joint memorandum on 26 May 2025 seeking a further adjournment, again “to allow the defendants to have further time to make repayments of the debt owed to the plaintiff”. In this memorandum it was noted that partial payment had been made by the defendants, and that the parties had entered into a payment plan pending full settlement of the debt. The adjournment was necessary “to monitor compliance with the agreed payment plan”. The summary judgment application was again adjourned to 7 August 2025.

[4]    In a memorandum dated 4 August 2025, the plaintiff’s counsel advised that since the previous adjournment the defendants had not continued to meet the agreed payment plan, and had not provided sufficient evidence to show repayment of the debt would be made within a reasonable time.

[5]    When the application for summary judgment was called before me on 7 August 2025 Mr Jones appeared in person. He advised that certain aspects of the claim were disputed and sought a further three months to raise funds to pay the debt. He explained that if judgment was entered it could have flow-on effects to other creditors.

[6]    I granted a short further adjournment to 13 August 2025  but explained  to  Mr Jones that the application for summary judgment was not defended and the claim had been acknowledged in the memoranda filed previously with the Court. I also advised Mr Jones that prior to the next hearing date the defendants would either have to make satisfactory arrangements with the plaintiff or take steps to oppose the summary judgment application, and that if neither of those steps were taken I would deal with the application on the basis of the information already before the Court.

[7]    The case came before me again at a telephone conference on 13 August 2025. The defendants had still not taken any steps in the proceeding and had not agreed terms with the plaintiff. I advised the plaintiff’s counsel and Mr Jones that in those circumstances I would deal with the plaintiff’s application for summary judgment on the papers.

The law

[8]    The plaintiff’s application is made under r 12.2 of the High Court Rules 2016, which relevantly provides:

12.2 Judgment when there is no defence or when no cause of action can succeed

(1)The court may give judgment against a defendant if the plaintiff  satisfies the court that the defendant has no defence to a cause of action in the statement of claim or to a particular part of any such cause of action.

…

[9]    The principles that apply to a plaintiff’s summary judgment application were summarised by Associate Judge Osborne in Mount Grey Downs Ltd v Pinot Properties Ltd.1 Relevantly for present purposes, to obtain summary judgment the plaintiff must show that the defendants have no arguable defence to the claim. The Court must be left without any real doubt or uncertainty on the matter.2

1      Mount Grey Downs Ltd v Pinot Properties Ltd [2018] NZHC 3094.

2 At [12].

Discussion

[10]   I have considered the statement of claim, the interlocutory application for summary judgment and the affidavit of Antony Robert James Aitken in support.

[11]   I am satisfied on the basis of the evidence before me that the allegations made in the statement of claim have been proved. Specifically, by the terms of a written continuing guarantee of 12 May 2020 and a guarantee and agreement to mortgage dated 21 February 2024 the defendants gave their personal guarantees in favour of the plaintiff for the due payment by Agritech Group Ltd and Jones and Associates Ltd of the obligations in respect to the operation of the Credit Account, and that following defaults in the operation of the Credit Account demands were made for payment upon the defendants pursuant to their guarantees which have not been satisfied. The plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment as the defendants have no arguable defence to the claim.

[12]As of 24 January 2025 there was owing to the plaintiff an amount of

$458,853.39. However, following the issue of the proceeding payments have been made by the defendants of $86,250 on 11 April 2025 and $10,000 on 26 May 2025 and default interest charges have been incurred. I will make a direction for the filing of an updating affidavit confirming the amount owing as at the date of this judgment.

[13]   The plaintiff also seeks indemnity costs in the amount of $18,856.40 (excluding GST). Indemnity costs are payable under the terms of operation of the Credit Account and also cl 12 of the guarantee and agreement to mortgage. Specifically, I note that cl 19 of the terms of operation of the Credit Account provides:

The Cardholder agrees to pay any cost of collection and all legal fees incurred by Ruralco (or its agents) in the event of legal action becoming necessary to recoup any outstanding amounts that are due and payable.

[14]   The amount that has been sought for costs appears reasonable, particularly when 2B scale costs and disbursements total $14,856.40. However, the plaintiff’s counsel has not provided copies of the invoices or time records supporting the costs claimed. I will therefore fix costs upon receipt of an affidavit providing that information.

Result

[15]   Judgment is entered for the plaintiff against the first and second defendants on liability in accordance with the statement of claim.

[16]   In respect to quantum, the plaintiff is to file an affidavit confirming the amount owing in the Credit Account as at the date of this judgment, including a calculation of how that amount has been determined.

[17]   In respect to costs, the plaintiff is entitled to costs on an indemnity basis. Counsel shall provide the bills of costs rendered to the plaintiff by its lawyers along with any time records supporting them. Counsel may redact any entries in the invoices and time records to the extent they are privileged.

[18]   Once I have the updating affidavit I shall issue a further judgment as to quantum on the papers.

O G Paulsen Associate Judge

Solicitors:
Tavendale and Partners, Christchurch