Godwin-austen Constructions Ltd v Wu [2026] NZHC 1718, 17 June 2026
- Court
- High Court
- Judgment
- 17 June 2026
- Neutral
- [2026] NZHC 1718
Areas of law
Judgment analysis
AI-generated summary
It can misstate holdings, facts, or citations. Always confirm against the judgment PDF.
Facts
The plaintiff and Wisetrade International Limited (of which Ms Wu is the sole director) entered into a standard form Registered Master Builders Association residential building contract. The contract document included a personal guarantee clause at Part 8, to be signed by the director(s) if the 'Owner' is a company. Ms Wu signed the guarantee page on 14 April 2021. The main contract signature page was signed by the plaintiff on 16 March 2021 and by Ms Wu and her husband for Wisetrade on 27 May 2021. An arbitral award ordered Wisetrade to pay the plaintiff $366,794.93, which Wisetrade has not paid. The plaintiff seeks summary judgment against Ms Wu to enforce the alleged personal guarantee. Ms Wu defends the claim, stating she signed the guarantee page by mistake and that a personal guarantee was never discussed or agreed upon.
Held
- Summary judgment will be declined where a defendant raises an arguable defence that a personal guarantee was signed by mistake, and that defence is not inherently improbable or inconsistent with the surrounding communications and documentary evidence.
- A material conflict of evidence sufficient to establish an arguable defence may arise from the chronology of signatures and correspondence, particularly where a plaintiff initially requests a party to 'counter-sign' a contract and only later, after the party has signed the guarantee page alone, requests they 'also' sign the main execution page.
The application for summary judgment is dismissed.
Key passages1
The test for granting summary judgment is if the defendant has no defence to the claim; that is, there is no real question to be tried. The Court must be left without any real doubt or uncertainty. While the Court will not normally resolve material conflicts of evidence, it need not uncritically accept evidence that is inherently lacking in credibility. The Court may take a robust and realistic approach.
“… The Court must be left without any real doubt or uncertainty. The onus is on the plaintiff, but where its evidence is sufficient to show there is no defence, the defendant will have to respond if the application is to be defeated. The Court will “not normally resolve material conflicts of evidence or assess the credibility of deponents”. But: … it need not accept uncritically evidence that is inherently lacking in credibility, as for example where the evidence is inconsistent with undisputed contemporary documents or other statements by the same deponent or is inherently improbable. In the end the Court’s assessment of the evidence is a matter of [judgement]. The Court “may take a robust and realistic approach where the facts warrant it”.”
Cases mentioned in judgment
Legislation mentioned
- High Court Rules, pt 14