Synlait Milk Limited v New Zealand Industrial Park Limited

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 50/2019
[2019] NZSC 117

BETWEEN	SYNLAIT MILK LIMITED Applicant
AND	NEW ZEALAND INDUSTRIAL PARK LIMITED First Respondent YE QING Second Respondent

Hearing:	21 October 2019
Court:	Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook and O’Regan JJ
Counsel:	J G Miles QC and A J Horne for Applicant A R Galbraith QC and D T Broadmore for Respondents
Judgment:	29 October 2019

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ABy consent, an order is made substituting Synlait Milk Ltd for Stonehill Trustee Ltd as applicant subject to the conditions set out in the joint memorandum of counsel dated 6 September 2019.

BLeave to appeal is granted to Synlait Milk Ltd as applicant (New Zealand Industrial Park Ltd v Stonehill Trustee Ltd [2019] NZCA 147).

CThe approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to reverse the decision of the High Court (Stonehill Trustee Ltd v New Zealand Industrial Park Ltd [2018] NZHC 2938).

DThe application by Synlait Milk Ltd to adduce further evidence will be determined at or after the hearing of the appeal.

ELeave is granted for the respondents to file an affidavit or affidavits responding to the evidence that Synlait Milk Ltd seeks to adduce. Such affidavit or affidavits must be filed on or before 15 November 2019.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The Court does not consider it appropriate to determine the application by Synlait Milk Ltd to adduce further evidence at this stage. However, the Court recognises that the respondents seek to adduce evidence in response to Synlait’s proposed new evidence. The respondents may file an application to adduce one or more affidavits in response to Synlait’s proposed evidence and the affidavits themselves. The Court will hear argument on both applications at the hearing and determine them at or after the hearing.
Counsel should make submissions on the alternative bases that:
(a)leave is given to both parties to adduce new evidence; and
(b)such leave is declined.
We direct the Registrar to amend the Court file by substituting Synlait Milk Ltd for Stonehill Trustee Ltd as applicant (now appellant).

Solicitors:
MinterEllisonRuddWatts, Auckland for Applicant
Buddle Findlay, Auckland for Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand heard an appeal by Synlait Milk Limited against a decision of the Court of Appeal. The primary issue before the Court was whether the Court of Appeal was correct in reversing the decision of the High Court. The case originated from a dispute between Synlait Milk Limited and New Zealand Industrial Park Limited, with a secondary respondent, Ye Qing, also involved. The appeal centred around the legal framework governing the substitution of parties and the admissibility of further evidence in the proceedings.

The legal issues the Court had to address included the appropriateness of allowing Synlait Milk Limited to substitute Stonehill Trustee Limited as the applicant, the conditions under which leave to appeal could be granted, and the parameters for adducing further evidence in the case. Specifically, the Court needed to determine if it was appropriate to hear the application to adduce further evidence at that stage of the proceedings. Furthermore, the Court had to consider whether the respondents should be permitted to provide evidence in response to Synlait Milk Limited's proposed new evidence.

The Court decided not to determine the application to adduce further evidence at that juncture, recognising that the respondents intended to present evidence in response to Synlait Milk Limited's proposed new evidence. It was noted that the respondents could file an application to present one or more affidavits in reply to Synlait’s evidence. The Court directed that both applications be heard and determined at or after the hearing. The Court also instructed counsel to prepare submissions on two alternative bases: granting leave to both parties to adduce new evidence or declining such leave. Ultimately, the Court ruled that leave to appeal should be granted, and the file was amended to reflect the substitution of Synlait Milk Limited for Stonehill Trustee Limited as the appellant.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established