Anderson v Carter

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CIV2013-463-000473 [2014] NZHC 107

BETWEEN MARK ANTONY ANDERSON First Plaintiff

ANDILLEEN MAVIS CHILCOTT Second Plaintiff

ANDYVONNE PAULA CARTER Defendant

Hearing: 10 February 2014

Appearances: D J Taylor for the Plaintiffs
Y P Carter in person the Defendant

Judgment: 11 February 2014

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE CHRISTIANSEN

This judgment was delivered by me on
11.02.14 at 4:30pm, pursuant to
Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………

M A ANDERSON v I M CHILCOTT [2014] NZHC 107 [11 February 2014]

[1] The defendant was sued to recover her share of a partnership liability incurred in the outcome of the partnership’s property development.

[2] The partners had achieved a considerable profit from the development from which the defendant received in excess of $400,000. Subsequently leaky home claims were brought on behalf of the apartment purchasers. Those claims were settled for a payment of $160,000 plus costs. The defendants’ contribution to this sum is fixed in the sum of $54,226.99.

[3] No defence was filed to the claim. Rather the defendant provided a sworn statement deposing to her inability to meet the amount due from her. Whilst her account of those reasons detail a sad background, it is clear those reasons could not compel the Court otherwise than to enter judgment in the amount sought.

[4] Accordingly judgment is entered in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendant in a total sum of $62,984.29.

[5] As well costs are directed to be paid by the defendant on a District Court middle band basis and amounting to a sum of $7888.00 inclusive of disbursements.

Associate Judge Christiansen

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Anderson v Carter, the plaintiffs, Mark Antony Anderson and Illeen Mavis Chilcott, sought to recover their share of a partnership liability from the defendant, Andyvonne Paula Carter, which arose from the outcome of a property development undertaken by their partnership. The partnership had successfully developed property, generating substantial profits, from which the defendant received over $400,000. However, subsequent leaky home claims brought on behalf of the apartment purchasers led to a settlement of $160,000 plus costs, with the defendant’s contribution fixed at $54,226.99.

The legal issues the court needed to address were primarily whether the defendant's sworn statement, which detailed her inability to pay, was sufficient to compel the court to deviate from entering judgment in the amount sought by the plaintiffs. The court had to assess the validity of the defendant's reasons for her inability to pay and whether they constituted a valid defence under the circumstances.

The court found that the reasons provided by the defendant, although detailing a sad personal background, did not constitute a valid defence against the liability incurred by the partnership. The court held that the sworn statement and the reasons for inability to pay did not compel it to deviate from entering judgment in the amount sought by the plaintiffs. Consequently, judgment was entered in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendant in the total sum of $62,984.29. Additionally, the court directed the defendant to pay costs on a District Court middle band basis, amounting to $7888.00, inclusive of disbursements.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established