Thomas v Morrhall - [2016] NZHC 2853

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2016-404-001126 [2016] NZHC 2853

UNDER the District Courts Act 1947

BETWEEN

EDEN THOMAS First Appellant

J R THOMAS AND J COCKROFT as Trustees of the THOMAS FAMILY TRUST

Second Appellant

ECLIPSE FOODS LIMITED Third Appellant

AND

JONATHAN MORRHALL Respondent

Hearing: 18 August 2016

Appearances:

T J Herbert for the Appellants
E J Werry for the Respondent

Judgment:

29 November 2016

JUDGMENT OF EDWARDS J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Edwards on 29 November 2016 at 3.30 pm, pursuant to
r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date:

Solicitors: Baker Law, Auckland
Kennelly Law, Orewa

Counsel: T J Herbert, Auckland
E J Werry, Auckland

THOMAS v MORRHALL [2016] NZHC 2853 [29 November 2016]

Introduction

[1] The appellants’ claim was commenced within time when it was filed in the Disputes Tribunal, but was subsequently struck out as being out of time following its transfer to the District Court.

[2] The Judge found that that the claim was not commenced when it was filed in the Tribunal, because the Tribunal is not a “Court of law” within the meaning of the Limitation Act 1950 (1950 Act). The Judge held that the claim was only commenced when it was brought in the District Court, which was outside the applicable limitation period.1 The appellants appeal that decision.

[3] The key issue is whether the Tribunal is a “Court of law” for the purposes of

s 4 of the 1950 Act.

Facts

[4] The appellants’ substantive claim relates to an alleged loan of $3,000 advanced by the first named appellant to the respondent on 25 February 2007. The appellants claim that the terms of the loan required repayment by 30 June 2007, and attracted default interest at the rate of 19.25 per cent per annum. They also claim that the respondent failed to settle an agreed purchase of shares for the sum of $90,000 on 30 June 2007.

[5] It is common ground that 30 June 2007 is the relevant date for limitation purposes.

[6] The claim was lodged in the Tribunal on 6 May 2013. Further claims were added on 18 June 2013 and on 9 July 2013 respectively.

[7] On 27 August 2013 the Tribunal Referee unilaterally ordered the transfer of the claims to the District Court. He did so on the basis that the claims were complex
and the appellants would benefit from having legal representation.

1 Thomas v Morrhall [2016] NZDC 8166.

[8] The appellants filed a notice of claim in the District Court on 10 September

2013 as required by the applicable District Court Rules.

[9] The respondent subsequently applied to strike out the claim on the grounds it was brought outside the six year limitation period prescribed by s 4 of the 1950 Act.

District Court decision

[10] The District Court Judge determined that the 1950 Act applied by virtue of s 59 of the Limitation Act 2010. Section 4(1) of the 1950 Act prohibits certain “actions” from…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Thomas v Morrhall and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] NZHC 2853
Decision Date: 29 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Thomas v Morrhall was an appeal from a decision of the District Court which held that an action filed in the Disputes Tribunal was not a valid commencement of proceedings for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1950. The appellants, including the estate of a deceased, sought to recover money owed from the respondent. The claim was filed in the Disputes Tribunal on 6 May 2013, and subsequently transferred to the District Court. The District Court held that the claim was not commenced when it was filed in the Tribunal, and was instead only commenced when it was filed in the District Court. This was outside the limitation period, and the claim was struck out as being time barred. The key issue on appeal was whether the Disputes Tribunal was a “Court of law” for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1950. The Court found that the Disputes Tribunal was a Court of law within the meaning of the Limitation Act 1950. The Court rejected the District Court’s reasoning that the Tribunal was not a Court of law because it was not bound by strict legal rights or obligations. The Court held that the Tribunal shared sufficient attributes of a Court of law to meet the purposes of the Limitation Act 1950. The appeal was allowed and the order striking out the proceeding was quashed. As the respondent was legally aided, no order as to costs was made.

Orders