Semper Finance Limited v Dahl

[2019] NZHC 1339

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CIV-2019-454-7

[2019] NZHC 1339

BETWEEN

SEMPER FINANCE LIMITED

Plaintiff

AND

ANDREW THEODORE DAHL and LISA JAYNE DAHL

Defendants

Hearing:

13 June 2019

Counsel:

M Dobson for plaintiff

First-named defendant in person
No appearance by or for second-named defendant

Judgment:

13 June 2019

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE JOHNSTON

[1]    In this proceeding the plaintiff, Semper Finance Ltd,  sues  the defendants, Mr Andrew and Mrs Lisa Dahl, pursuant to guarantees provided by them in respect of the indebtedness of a company by the name of Andy Dahl Contracting Ltd. The proceeding was commenced on 7 February 2019. Together with the notice of proceeding and statement of claim, the plaintiff sought summary judgment, filing a notice of application for the same together with supporting affidavit evidence. The originating documentation was served on the defendants – separately – during February 2019. Neither defendant has entered a defence or taken any other formal step in the proceeding.

[2]    The basis for the claim is described in the plaintiff’s statement of claim and notice of application, and the evidential foundation for it is set out in the affidavit of Alan McKenzie Larsen who is the plaintiff’s director.

SEMPER FINANCE LIMITED v DAHL [2019] NZHC 1339 [13 June 2019]

[3]    When this matter was called in the Palmerston North commercial list today, Mr Dahl attended the hearing. I asked him whether he accepted that he and Mrs Dahl had received all relevant documentation, understood the nature of the plaintiff’s claim, accepted that the money which the plaintiff alleged it had lent to Andy Dahl Contracting Ltd had in fact been lent, and that he and Mrs Dahl had guaranteed the loans and were liable for them. Mr Dahl accepted all of that. He did say that there had been other litigation between the parties (which I take to be a reference to the proceeding winding up Andy Dahl Contracting Ltd) and that he regarded some of the things which the plaintiff had done in the context of that proceeding as having been “a bit shabby”.

[4]    Having considered all the material before the court and heard Mr Dobson for the plaintiff, I am satisfied that the plaintiff’s claim is made out and that it has established that the defendants have no viable defence.

[5]    Mr Dobson has filed a helpful memorandum setting out the basis upon which the plaintiff has calculated the contractual interest to which it is entitled and costs.

[6]The plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment for:

(a)the principal sum of $397,423.73;

(b)interest at the contractual rate of 15 per cent per annum (which, as at today’s date, stands at $20,423.73);

(c)total costs and disbursements of $10,304.50.

Associate Judge Johnston

Solicitors:

Wadham Partners, Palmerston North for plaintiff