Sued for $442,000 unpaid on two construction contracts, it was not credible for director Jason Campbell to defend a summary judgment claim by simply stating his company was not liable and that the wrong company was being sued.
The High Court operates a fast-track summary judgment procedure for debt claims. Provided there are no disputed facts, unpaid creditors get a prompt court ruling giving the creditor extra leverage when chasing payment. Judges are wise to contrived factual conflicts designed by debtors to re-route a fast-track summary decision into a slow-track process forcing delays with a full court hearing.
Auckland plasterer Multistop Ltd was left chasing just over $442,000 for work done during 2020 and 2021 on building sites in Mangere and Te Atatu. There was no written contract. Multistop thought it was working for a company called Innovate Civil and Construction Ltd. Directors at the time were Jason Campbell and Barry Hayes. Companies Office records show Mr Hayes resigned as director in October 2021. When Multistop later sued, Mr Campbell said it was not an Innovate Civil debt; the money was owed by a separate company controlled by Mr Hayes.
Multistop told the High Court that agreement to do the job was made on site in discussions with Mr Campbell. He was wearing a high-vis vest carrying the Innovate Civil logo and on-site signage advertised the work as an Innovate Civil project. Interim invoices, which were never paid, were addressed to Innovate Civil. Emails promising payments, which never came, were sent from an Innovate Civil email address.
It was only when Innovate Civil was sued that Mr Campbell said payment was his former business partner’s responsibility. Multistop was suing the wrong company; Mr Hayes company B&R Property Maintenance Ltd was liable, he said.
Associate judge Lester ruled there was no direct evidence of any contract between Multistop and Mr Hayes’ company. Mr Campbell at no time during contract discussions explained that he was acting as a ‘go-between’ or was acting as an agent on behalf of Mr Haye’s company, Judge Lester said. It was an Innovate Civil debt. Summary judgement was entered against Innovate.
Multistop Ltd v. Innovate Civil and Construction Ltd – High Court (5.04.23)
23.040