Steel Building Products (Northern) Limited v Happy

[2025] NZHC 1210

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2024-404-2546

[2025] NZHC 1210

BETWEEN

STEEL BUILDING PRODUCTS (NORTHERN) LIMITED
Plaintiff

AND

AARON KEITH HAPPY

First Defendant

OLIVIA JEAN IRVING
Second Defendant

BLUEFIN PROPERTIES LIMITED
Third Defendant

A & O VENTURES LIMITED

Fourth Defendant

Hearing:	5 May 2025
Appearances:	J M de Jongh for the plaintiff N S Tabb for the defendants
Judgment:	21 May 2025

JUDGMENT OF BLANCHARD J

This judgment was delivered by me on 21 May 2025 at 2.30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

MinterEllisonRuddWatts, Auckland N S Tabb, Auckland

STEEL BUILDING PRODUCTS (NORTHERN) LTD v HAPPY [2025] NZHC 1210 [21 May 2025]

[1]    The plaintiff, which trades as Metalcraft Roofing (Metalcraft), seeks summary judgment against the defendants in the sum of $430,136.06, together with interest from 1 August 2024 to the date of payment and solicitor/client costs. The claim arises from the guarantee by the defendants (the guarantors) of the indebtedness of Riteline Roofing Ltd (in liquidation) (Riteline) to Metalcraft under a credit supply agreement dated 26 August 2014 (Agreement).

[2]    The guarantors filed a notice of opposition opposing summary judgment on various  grounds.  However,  at  the  hearing  of  the  proceeding,  all  the  grounds  of opposition except one were abandoned.1  The one remaining basis of opposition   is that Metalcraft has an insurance policy to cover the non-payment of invoices which it has not sought to claim under.

[3]    Ms Tabb appeared for the guarantors  at the hearing on what  she described  as a “limited basis”. She said that the guarantors could not afford to pay her to represent them fully. For that reason, she was not able to file written submissions for the hearing. Nor did she elaborate on the remaining ground of opposition based on the insurance policy at the hearing.

[4]    Metalcraft’s position is that it has elected to recover the debt from the guarantors ahead of, or in substitution for, any other claims it may or may not have. It says it is not obliged to claim on an insurance policy in circumstances in which it has various legal claims against the guarantors.

[5]    Metalcraft’s position is clearly correct. A plaintiff is not required to give the defendant the benefit of an insurance policy taken out to protect against the very wrong the defendant has committed.2

[6]    It is common ground that Metalcraft is only entitled to claim simple interest under the Agreement. At the hearing, Ms Tabb suggested that Metalcraft’s claim may include some compound interest. The parties investigated this after the hearing. They

1      See  Steel  Building  Products  (Northern)  Ltd  v  Happy  HC  Auckland  CIV-2024-404-2546,  5 May 2025 (Minute of Blanchard J).

2      Blumberg v Frucor Beverages Ltd [2018] NZHC 1876, [2018] 3 NZLR 672 at [56]; and Marcus Pawson The Laws of New Zealand Damages (online ed) at [24] and [116].

subsequently advised that Ms Tabb was correct that the sum claimed did include some compound interest, although the amount of compound interest was small (around

$800).

[7]    A new calculation has been prepared that excludes the compound interest. The sum referred to above ($430,136.06) is the reduced sum that includes only simple interest.

[8]    For these reasons, I grant summary judgment to Metalcraft. I enter judgment in favour of Metalcraft against the guarantors in the sum of $430,136.06.

[9]    Metalcraft has also calculated that further interest accrued from 1 August 2024 until 5 May 2025 (the date of hearing) in the sum of $74,350.93. I enter judgment for this amount also.

[10]   Metalcraft also seeks a declaration that interest continues to accrue under the Agreement on the sum of $405,788.74 at the rate of two per cent per month from     5 May 2025 until the date of payment. I make this declaration.

[11]   Finally, Metalcraft is entitled to solicitor/client costs under the Agreement. Since the hearing, it has quantified the costs and disbursements that it claims at

$51,573.19. This figure is GST exclusive.

[12]   The guarantors have not had an opportunity to make submissions on the reasonableness of this figure. Should they wish to do so, I direct them to file a memorandum within five working days of this judgment.

Blanchard J