Watkins v Samson Corporation Limited - [2024] NZHC 2416

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2024-404-332

[2024] NZHC 2416

BETWEEN
NICOLA MAREE WATKINS

Appellant

AND

SAMSON CORPORATION LIMITED

Respondent

Hearing: 20 August 2024

Appearances:

Appellant in person

B Martelli for the Respondent

Judgment:

27 August 2024

JUDGMENT OF BLANCHARD J

This judgment was delivered by me on Tuesday, 27 August 2024 at 3:00 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: Martelli Yaqub Lawyers, Auckland Copy to: Appellant

WATKINS v SAMSON CORPORATION LIMITED [2024] NZHC 2416 [27 August 2024]

[1] Ms Watkins appeals against a decision of Judge K Davenport in the District Court at Auckland dated 13 November 2023.1 The Judge granted summary judgment in favour of Samson Corporation Ltd (Samson) for $23,319, plus costs of $3,382 and disbursements of $1,361.15, and declined an application for summary judgment in relation to a counterclaim by Ms Watkins against Samson.

Lease

[2] On 2 July 2020, Samson and Red Stag Metal Fabrication Ltd (Red Stag) executed a deed of lease in relation to premises in Ponsonby, Auckland. The lease was for a term of two years, commencing on 1 July 2020. The annual rent was $52,000 plus GST. The rent was payable in instalments of $4,333.34 plus GST on the first day of every month starting on 1 July 2020. Interest was payable at 15 per cent in the event of default and costs of recovery were payable on an indemnity basis.

[3] Ms Watkins executed the deed of lease as guarantor. She is the sole director and shareholder of Red Stag.

Operation of business

[4] Red Stag began using the premises in July 2020. It operated a store selling metal gates and garden products trading under the name “Gate & Garden”.

[5] During the 16 months that Red Stag occupied the premises, Ms Watkins raised various maintenance issues. The business was also affected by COVID lockdowns. Ms Watkins asked for, and Red Stag received, some rent relief because of COVID. Ms Watkins also asked for rent reductions, and Samson agreed to reduce the rent.

Surrender of premises and payment agreement

[6] Red Stag operated from the premises until November 2021. On Monday 1 November 2021, Ms Watkins advised Daniel Friedlander, CEO of Samson, that Red Stag was unable to continue at the premises. She told him that she would surrender

1 Samson Corp Ltd v Watkins [2023] NZDC 25303.

the keys at the end of the week once the premises had been vacated and cleaned. Red Stag moved out of the premises completely on 8 November 2021.

[7] On 29 November 2021, Samson advised Ms Watkins that a conditional agreement to re-lease had been executed and, once the assignment of lease was completed, Red Stag would cease to be liable for the rent and it would receive a final invoice.

[8]On 13 December 2021, Samson sent Ms Watkins a final invoice for

$39,785.68.

[9] On the same date, Ms Watkins and…

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 Watkins v Samson Corporation Limited 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: [2024] NZHC 2416
Decision Date: 27 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Nicola Watkins appeals a District Court decision in which Judge K Davenport granted summary judgment in favour of Samson Corporation Limited (Samson) for $23,319, plus costs and disbursements, and dismissed her application for summary judgment in relation to a counterclaim against Samson. Watkins, as the sole director and shareholder of Red Stag Metal Fabrication Ltd (Red Stag), executed a deed of lease as guarantor for premises in Ponsonby, Auckland. Red Stag occupied the premises until November 2021, when it surrendered the premises and agreed to a payment plan for outstanding rent. Watkins alleges she signed the payment agreement under duress, a claim rejected by the District Court. The High Court found that the agreement was affirmed by Watkins and any right to claim duress was lost. The Court upheld the District Court's decision that Samson was entitled to summary judgment for $23,319. The Court also rejected Watkins's counterclaim, finding it did not provide a defence to Samson's claim. The appeal in relation to the summary judgment entered in favour of Samson and the refusal to grant summary judgment in favour of Watkins are both dismissed. The Court directs the parties to file cost memoranda if they cannot agree on costs.

Orders