Sportzone Motorcycles Limited v Commerce Commission

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 40/2015
[2015] NZSC 97

BETWEEN

SPORTZONE MOTORCYCLES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)
First Applicant

MOTOR TRADE FINANCES LIMITED
Second Applicant

AND

COMMERCE COMMISSION
Respondent

Court:	William Young, Arnold and O'Regan JJ
Counsel:	D J Goddard QC and I J Thain for Applicants S J Mills QC and K C Francis for Respondent
Judgment:	2 July 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to appeal is granted (Sportzone Motorcycles Ltd (in liq) and Motor Trade Finances Ltd v Commerce Commission [2015] NZCA 78).
BThe approved question is:
Did the Court of Appeal err in finding that the fees charged by the applicants were unreasonable for the purposes of s 41 of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003?

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Leave is granted only on the question set out above. The Court does not consider that the second question on which the applicants sought leave meets the criteria set out in s 13 Supreme Court Act 2003.[1] The point is specific to the facts of the present case and therefore does not give rise to a point of general or public importance or a matter of general commercial significance. We see no appearance of a miscarriage of justice if leave is refused.
[1]Did the Court of Appeal err in finding that it had been established that the debtors had suffered loss or damage for the purposes of s 94 of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003.
The grant of leave does not extend to the point raised in para 4.11 of the submissions for the applicants relating to fees charged to the first applicant by the second applicant and passed on by the first applicant to debtors. We do not consider the statutory criteria are met in relation to that issue and the difficulties identified in the Court of Appeal arising from the point not being raised in the High Court would also arise in this Court if leave were granted.

Solicitors:
DLA Piper, Auckland for Applicants
Meredith Connell, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Sportzone Motorcycles Limited (in liquidation) and Motor Trade Finances Limited jointly applied for leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal. The case involved the interpretation and application of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003, specifically regarding the fees charged by the applicants, which the Court of Appeal had found to be unreasonable. The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeal erred in its determination that the fees were unreasonable under section 41 of the Act. The applicants argued that the fees were reasonable and necessary for the services provided.

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal but only on the specific issue of whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the fees unreasonable. The Court did not grant leave on the second question posed by the applicants, which pertained to whether the Court of Appeal had erred in finding that the debtors had suffered loss or damage under section 94 of the Act. The Court reasoned that this second question did not meet the criteria for leave under section 13 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 as it was specific to the facts of the case and did not present a point of general or public importance.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning focused on the specific statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal and whether the issue presented was of general significance. The Court concluded that the second question did not meet the necessary criteria, and therefore, leave was not granted on that point. The Court also noted that if leave were granted on the second question, it would face difficulties similar to those encountered by the Court of Appeal, given that the issue had not been raised in the High Court. Consequently, the Court’s decision was limited to addressing the reasonableness of the fees charged by the applicants under section 41 of the Act.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established