KING V PFL FINANCE LIMITED HC AK CIV-2012-404-1734
The court allowed the plaintiffs leave to amend the statement of claim but required omission of the cause of action in waiver and estoppel; the plaintiffs' application for interim orders was declined; the defendants' application for security for costs against the Second Plaintiff was declined.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- openlaw-68475bab_a2c8_4ed9_9293_e47ca6b5436a.pdf
- Parties
- First Plaintiff: Thomas Frederick Mazlin King and Judith Ruth King as trustees of the TFM and JR King Partnership; Second Plaintiff: Havelock Farms Limited; First Defendant: PFL Finance Limited; Second Defendant: Craig Beecroft
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 17 September 2012
- Procedural Posture
- High Court Civil Interlocutory Applications / Interlocutory (applications for Leave to Amend, Interim Orders, and Security for Costs)
- Outcome
- Leave to amend allowed with limitation; interim orders declined; security for costs declined.
- Legal Topics
- Amendment of Pleadings, Interim Orders, Security for Costs, Waiver and Estoppel
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Thomas Frederick Mazlin King and Judith Ruth King as trustees of the TFM and JR King Partnership
First Plaintiff
Havelock Farms Limited
Second Plaintiff
PFL Finance Limited
First Defendant
Craig Beecroft
Second Defendant
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Interlocutory Applications / Interlocutory (applications for Leave to Amend, Interim Orders, and Security for Costs)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave to amend the statement of claim should be granted
- 2 Whether the plaintiffs' application for interim orders should be granted
- 3 Whether security for costs should be ordered against the Second Plaintiff
Ratio Decidendi
The court allowed the plaintiffs leave to amend the statement of claim but required omission of the cause of action in waiver and estoppel; the plaintiffs' application for interim orders was declined; the defendants' application for security for costs against the Second Plaintiff was declined.
Court Disposition
Leave to amend allowed with limitation; interim orders declined; security for costs declined.
Orders
- Leave to amend the statement of claim is granted provided the cause of action in waiver and estoppel is omitted.
- The Plaintiffs' application for interim orders is declined.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
KING V PFL FINANCE LIMITED HC AK CIV-2012-404-1734 [17 September 2012]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYCIV-2012-404-1734[2012] NZHC 2401BETWEEN THOMAS FREDERICK MAZLIN KINGAND JUDITH RUTH KING ASTRUSTEES OF THE TFM AND JR KINGPARTNERSHIPFirst PlaintiffAND HAVELOCK FARMS LIMITEDSecond PlaintiffAND PFL FINANCE LIMITEDFirst DefendantAND CRAIG BEECROFTSecond DefendantHearing: 14 September 2012Appearances: A J Woodhouse and A C Poole for PlaintiffsK M Quinn for DefendantsJudgment: 17 September 2012RESULT JUDGMENT OF PETERS JThis judgment was delivered by Justice Peters on 17 September 2012 at 2:45 pmpursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court RulesRegistrar/Deputy RegistrarDate: ...................................Solicitors: Carter & Partners, Auckland: tonyw@carterslaw.co.nz / alicep@carterslaw.co.nzHeimsath Alexander, Auckland: angela@halaw.co.nzCounsel: K M Quinn, Auckland: kelly.quinn@bankside.co.nz[1] On 14 September 2012 I heard three interlocutory applications, being thePlaintiffs' applications for leave to amend their statement of claim and for interimorders, and the Defendants' application for security for costs against the SecondPlaintiff.[2] At the conclusion of the hearing I advised counsel that I would deliver a results judgment today with reasons to follow.Result[3] The Plaintiffs' application for leave to amend is allowed, but the Plaintiffs are required to omit the cause of action in waiver and estoppel.[4] The Plaintiffs' application for interim orders is declined.[5] The Defendants' application for security for costs against the Second Plaintiffis declined.[6] My reasons will follow shortly...................................................................M Peters J