Strand Corporation Limited v Dickson HC Auckland CIV 2008-404-7707

[2010] NZHC 925

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2008-404-007707

BETWEEN  STRAND CORPORATION LIMITED Plaintiff

ANDMARY JEANNIE DICKSON First Defendant

ABHUNESH VIJENDRA SAHAI Second Defendant

QIN ZHANG Third Defendant

NENG-JU MA WU Fourth Defendant

DEREK CADMAN Fifth Defendant

Hearing:         14 June 2010

Appearances: A M Swan for the Plaintiff

No Appearance of or for the First to Fifth Defendants

Judgment:      14 June 2010

ORAL JUDGMENT OF DUFFY J

Counsel:     A M Swan P O Box 5444 Wellesley Street Auckland 1141 for the Plaintiff

STRAND CORPORATION LTD V DICKSON AND ORS HC AK CIV-2008-404-007707  14 June 2010

[1]      This is a matter where the plaintiff is seeking a damages judgment against the first defendant (Mary Dickson) and the third defendant (Qin Zhang) pursuant to rr 15.10 and 15.11 of High Court Rules.   There is no appearance by either the defendant.  Neither has taken any steps since the start of the proceeding.

[2]      On 15 December 2008,  this Court made orders for specific performance against the first and third defendants, and associated orders in terms of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the plaintiff’s application for summary judgment.  The plaintiff was unable to enforce the orders for specific performance.  On 9 September 2009, those orders were dissolved.   Orders were also made cancelling the agreement for sale and purchase dated 9 November 2006 between the plaintiff and the first defendant, and cancelling the agreement for sale and purchase dated 11 January 2007 between the plaintiff and third defendant.   Following the dissolving of the orders for specific performance and the cancellation of the sale and purchase agreements, the plaintiff now seeks damages for the first and third defendants’ defaults under each respective sale and purchase agreement.

[3]      The plaintiff has filed an affidavit in support of its claim by its director, Paul John Tweedie.  The affidavit sets out the losses the plaintiff has suffered as a result of the defendants’ default.   That affidavit was filed in the expectation that judgment would be entered on 12 March 2010 and for that purpose the interest calculation was made to that date.  Because that did not occur and judgment is being entered today, there has needed to be updated interest calculations.

[4]      In relation to the first defendant, Mary Dickson, there is a total loss as a result of her default under the sale and purchase agreement in the sum of:

Total Loss  $ 38,612.16

Interest  from  22  October  2008  to  20  April  2009  on  the  balance  of  the purchase price of $329,378 at 18 per cent per annum

$ 34,636.50

Interest from 20 April 2009 to 12 March 2010 on the loss of $38,612.16 at

18 per cent per annum

$   6,207.04

Additional interest from 13 March 2010 to 14 June 2010, being 94 days at

$19.04 per day

$   1,789.76

Total Claim  $ 81,245.4

The plaintiff is entitled to costs on a 2B basis.

[5]      In relation to the third defendant, Qin Zhang, there is a total loss as a result of her default under the sale and purchase agreement in the sum of:

Total Loss  $ 39,679.16

Interest from 22 October 2008 to 30 June 2009 on the balance of the purchase price of $412,223 at 18 per cent per annum

$ 50,822.50

Interest from 30 June 2009 to 12 March 2010 on the loss of $39,679.16 at

18 per cent per annum

$   4,990.35

Additional interest from 13 March 2010 to 14 June 2010, being 94 days at

$19.57 per day

$   1,839.58

Total Claim  $ 97,331.59

The plaintiff is entitled to costs on a 2B basis.

Duffy J