Watson v Whitehead

[2014] NZHC 2992

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CIV-2013-488-000359 [2014] NZHC 2992

BETWEEN

DENIS ERIC WATSON and MERYL JOY

WATSON (as trustees of the Salem

Charitable Trust) First Plaintiffs

WATSON & SON LIMITED Second Plaintiff

AND

JOHN EDWARD WHITEHEAD and ROSALEEN MARIE WHITEHEAD and EDWARD IVAN WHITEHEAD (as trustees of the J and R Whitehead Trust) First Defendants

SHILOH CHARITABLE TRUST Second Defendant

Hearing:	18-22, 25-29 August and 22 October 2014
Appearances:	K P Sullivan for the First and Second Plaintiffs M C Black for the First and Second Defendants
Judgment:	27 November 2014

INTERIM [RESERVED] JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Wylie on 27 November 2014 at 4.30 pm

Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:

WATSON & ORS v WHITEHEAD & ORS [2014] NZHC 2992 [27 November 2014]

INDEX

Paragraph Introduction ..............................................................................................................[1] The Factual Background .........................................................................................[7] Manuka honey...................................................................................................[8]

Mr Watson/Mr Whitehead............................................................................... [11] Shiloh and JRWT – the 2008 agreement ........................................................[18] Salem and JRWT – the 2009 agreement .........................................................[21] The key agreements.........................................................................................[25] The arrangements unravel ..............................................................................[31]

The Pleadings..........................................................................................................[46] The defendants’ counterclaim .........................................................................[48] The plaintiffs’ defence to the counterclaims ...................................................[52] The plaintiffs’ second amended statement of claim ........................................[56] The defendants’ statement of defence .............................................................[64] General ...........................................................................................................[65]

Analysis ...................................................................................................................[66] (i)     The Agreements ..............................................................................................[67] Are the agreements properly signed? .............................................................[67]

Who owned the honey – what did the agreements provide? ...........................[75] Was the hive purchase price payable under the first to fourth agreements .......... to be offset by the supply of 2011 honey owned by Salem? ..........................[101]
Do the October 2010 and November 2011 agreements record the bargain ......... made between the parties?............................................................................[104] The Fair Trading Act ....................................................................................[107] Misrepresentation .........................................................................................[129] Estoppel ........................................................................................................[132] Rectification ..................................................................................................[137] The purchase price of the honey ...................................................................[142] The purchase price of the hives ....................................................................[145] Are the key agreements “interdependent”? ..................................................[150]

(ii)JRWT’s claims pursuant to the agreement for the sale and purchase of ............... honey and for additional honey supplied ......................................................[158]

(iii)Shiloh’s claims pursuant to the deed of arrangement and the third, first ............. and fourth agreements...................................................................................[190]

(iv)   JRWT’s claims pursuant to the second agreement for the hire of hives ....... [211] (v)    Any additional claims available to JRWT? ...................................................[214] (vi)        Salem/WSL’s claims pursuant to the second agreement for the hire of................ hives ..............................................................................................................[217]

(vii)  Salem’s/WSL’s claims pursuant to the deed of arrangement and the first,........... third and fourth agreements ..........................................................................[238] Summary ...............................................................................................................[268]

Introduction

[1]      These proceedings arise out of a series of agreements entered into between two beekeepers.  The key protagonist for the plaintiffs is Mr Denis Watson.  He is a trustee of the first plaintiff, the Salem Charitable Trust (“Salem”), and a shareholder in  and  the  managing  director  of  the  second  plaintiff,  Watson  &  Son  Limited (“WSL”).  The key protagonist for the defendants is Mr John Whitehead.  He is a trustee of the first defendant, the J & R Whitehead Trust (“JRWT”), and until February 2010, he was a trustee of the second defendant, the Shiloh Charitable Trust (“Shiloh”).

[2]      These…