Short of cash and alleging a conspiracy by the bloodstock industry, Auckland barrister Greg Jones refused to pay money owed NZ Bloodstock Finance and Leasing. The High Court ruled in favour of NZ Bloodstock on its claim for $431,632.
A turbulent history between Mr Jones and financier NZ Bloodstock played out in the High Court after Mr Jones unilaterally stopped loan repayments in 2018. With touted expertise in insurance law developed over a forty year legal career, Mr Jones also breeds thoroughbred horses. In May 2016, he signed a standard-form loan contract with NZ Bloodstock Finance & Leasing Ltd allowing an overdraft of up to $200,000 repayable on demand with interest on current balances at ten per cent. NZ Bloodstock took security over horses he purchased and their progeny. Mr Jones was committed to selling his bloodstock through NZ Bloodstock; sale receipts used to pay down current advances.
Evidence was given that in excess of $400,000 had been drawn down by the end of 2016, a total later reduced by bloodstock sales. NZ Bloodstock gave further financial assistance with a horse sold on lease-to-buy. By the end of 2017, just under $340,000 was owed. NZ Bloodstock was getting nervous. It invited Mr Jones to outline his plans ‘going forward.’ Saying he was ‘stitched for cash,’ Mr Jones requested a credit extension; NZ Bloodstock offered him twelve months, warning there would be no further extensions. Subsequent correspondence became less friendly: Mr Jones stating he needed more time and further funding to establish a profitable breeding programme; NZ Bloodstock sending formal legal letters demanding immediate repayment. When NZ Bloodstock sued, Mr Jones alleged breaches of the Credit Contracts Act together with allegations of a widespread conspiracy within the thoroughbred industry to harm his breeding programme (involving allegations of sales to him of horses at vastly inflated prices and refusals to enter his bloodstock on premium sale cards). Mr Jones coupled this with allegations against his former wife, the legal firm in which he was previously a partner and an insurance company. Justice Jagose noted most of these allegations were of no relevance to NZ Bloodstock’s claim for repayment of money lent. There was no evidence to support his claimed defences under the Credit Contracts Act, Justice Jagose ruled. Judgment was entered in favour of NZ Bloodstock.
New Zealand Bloodstock Finance & Leasing Ltd v. Jones – High Court (5.06.20)
20.097