Rent Plus Ltd v Sorenson (No.2) [2013] NSWSC 67

Rent Plus Ltd v Sorenson (No.2) [2013] NSWSC 67

Rent Plus was entitled to registration because the power of attorney appointing Mr Finnigan was validly executed under United Finance's constitution by a director whose signature was witnessed, the Deed of Confirmation of Assignment was therefore valid and effective to assign the benefit of the New Zealand judgment to Rent Plus, and the New Zealand District Court order substituting Rent Plus as plaintiff was a regular and enforceable judgment that this Court would not go behind. The Sorensons did not establish that the rights under the New Zealand judgment were not vested in Rent Plus under s 7(2)(a)(viii) of the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Application by Summons for Registration of a New Zealand District Court Money Judgment Under Part 2 of the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (cth) / Second Application for Registration; Objections Heard Before Registration as If Under S 7 of the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (cth)
Outcome
The Court rejected the defendants' objections to registration and proposed that the New Zealand judgment be registered, but directed the parties to provide short minutes of order before final orders were made.
Legal Topics
['registration of Foreign Judgments' 'foreign Judgments Act 1991 (cth)' 'validity and Assignment of Judgment Debt' 'execution of Company Documents' 'power of Attorney by Company Directors' 'substitution of Plaintiff After Judgment']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application by Summons for Registration of a New Zealand District Court Money Judgment Under Part 2 of the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (cth) / Second Application for Registration; Objections Heard Before Registration as If Under S 7 of the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (cth)

  1. 1 ['Whether there had been a valid assignment of the New Zealand judgment debt from United Finance to Rent Plus.' 'Whether the New Zealand District Court order substituting Rent Plus as plaintiff and judgment creditor was effective or irregular.' 'Whether the absence of any appeal or challenge in New Zealand affected registration in New South Wales.' 'Whether the rights under the New Zealand judgment were vested in Rent Plus for the purposes of s 7(2)(a)(viii) of the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth).']

Ratio Decidendi

Rent Plus was entitled to registration because the power of attorney appointing Mr Finnigan was validly executed under United Finance's constitution by a director whose signature was witnessed, the Deed of Confirmation of Assignment was therefore valid and effective to assign the benefit of the New Zealand judgment to Rent Plus, and the New Zealand District Court order substituting Rent Plus as plaintiff was a regular and enforceable judgment that this Court would not go behind. The Sorensons did not establish that the rights under the New Zealand judgment were not vested in Rent Plus under s 7(2)(a)(viii) of the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth).

Court Disposition

The Court rejected the defendants' objections to registration and proposed that the New Zealand judgment be registered, but directed the parties to provide short minutes of order before final orders were made.

Orders

  • ['Order that the plaintiff provide to the defendants and to the Court the short minutes of order contended for within seven days of the date of delivery judgment.' 'Order that the defendants provide to the Court within seven days thereafter, an indication of whether or not those orders are agreed, and if not agreed,...