Hearing:	9 and 10 March 2016
Court:	Kós, Keane and Dobson JJ
Counsel:	K P Sullivan for Appellants M C Black for Respondents
Judgment:	2 June 2016 at 11.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The appeal is allowed in part. The amounts payable for rent of hives are to be the subject of equitable set-off against amounts owing for purchases of honey on each due date, with interest calculated on the net balance outstanding.
B The order for indemnity costs on the respondents’ claims for payment of outstanding amounts for honey sold to the appellants is overruled, and replaced with an order in favour of the respondents for costs on a 2B basis.
CRemaining aspects of the appeal are dismissed.
DThe cross-appeal is dismissed.
ECosts are ordered in favour of the appellants at two-thirds of costs for a standard appeal on a band A basis together with usual disbursements, with no order for costs on the cross-appeal.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Dobson J)

Table of Contents

Para No

Introduction............................................................................................................. [1]

The parties................................................................................................................ [4]

The sequence of transactions.................................................................................. [6]

Claims and counterclaims..................................................................................... [36]

High Court outcomes............................................................................................ [42]

Liability................................................................................................................ [42]
Quantum.............................................................................................................. [51]
Costs.................................................................................................................... [54]

The Whiteheads’ cross-appeal.............................................................................. [56]

JRWT’s rental payment direct to Shiloh.............................................................. [56]

The Watsons’ appeal.............................................................................................. [85]

Off-setting liabilities before or after charging interest?..................................... [85]
Did the 18 per cent contractual provision merge with the judgment?.............. [107]
Damages for hives acquired in unusable condition.......................................... [109]
Rental for hire of hives payable for the full year?............................................. [119]
Appeal from costs judgment.............................................................................. [127]

Costs on the appeal.............................................................................................. [144]

Result.................................................................................................................... [145]

Introduction

This appeal and cross-appeal arise out of a sequence of contracts between two bee-keeping entities, involving the sale and lease back of significant numbers of beehives, the entitlement to sites at which the hives were located, and the sale and purchase of various grades of Manuka honey.
The disputes were the subject of an 11 day hearing before Wylie J in the High Court at Whangarei, following which Wylie J issued an interim judgment on 27 November 2014 addressing liability.[1] A final judgment dealing with quantum was issued on 17 April 2015.[2] A third judgment dealing with costs was issued on 20 July 2015.[3]
[1]Watson v Whitehead [2014] NZHC 2992.
[2]Watson v Whitehead [2015] NZHC 739.
[3]Watson v Whitehead [2015] NZHC 1679.
Both sides, by their counsel, were emphatic that the Judge had done a marvellous job in bringing order to the chaos of the breakdown of the complicated arrangements between the parties. However, admiration for the quality of the…

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.

Continue reading Watson & Son Limited v Whitehead

Details

AGLC: Watson & Son Limited v Whitehead [2016] NZCA 241
Case: [2016] NZCA 241
Decision Date: 2 June 2016 at 11.30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This appeal and cross-appeal arise out of a sequence of contracts between two bee-keeping entities, involving the sale and lease back of significant numbers of beehives, the entitlement to sites at which the hives were located, and the sale and purchase of various grades of Manuka honey. The disputes were the subject of an 11 day hearing before Wylie J in the High Court at Whangarei, following which Wylie J issued an interim judgment on 27 November 2014 addressing liability. A final judgment dealing with quantum was issued on 17 April 2015. A third judgment dealing with costs was issued on 20 July 2015. Both sides, by their counsel, were emphatic that the Judge had done a marvellous job in bringing order to the chaos of the breakdown of the complicated arrangements between the parties. However, admiration for the quality of the judgments did not stop both sides pressing for alterations to the result on discrete points in order to achieve a final outcome more advantageous to them. The appeal and cross-appeal were heard on 9 and 10 March 2016 before Kós, Keane and Dobson JJ. The appeal was allowed in part. The amounts payable for rent of hives are to be the subject of equitable set-off against amounts owing for purchases of honey on each due date, with interest calculated on the net balance outstanding. The order for indemnity costs on the respondents’ claims for payment of outstanding amounts for honey sold to the appellants is overruled, and replaced with an order in favour of the respondents for costs on a 2B basis. Remaining aspects of the appeal are dismissed. The cross-appeal is dismissed. Costs are ordered in favour of the appellants at two-thirds of costs for a standard appeal on a band A basis together with usual disbursements, with no order for costs on the cross-appeal.

Orders