JOHNSON v JOHNSON [2023] NZHC 2277

JOHNSON v JOHNSON [2023] NZHC 2277

"Preceding 52 weeks" is to be calculated from the date of the examination hearing, not the date the order was sealed; financial information of companies wholly owned by the judgment debtor is relevant to valuing the debtor's shareholdings and therefore must be produced by the debtor for the purposes of enforcement, subject to protective conditions on disclosure; no immediate arrest order was made but arrest under r 17.18 will follow if the debtor fails to comply with the production orders by the specified deadline.

Citation
[2023] NZHC 2277
Parties
Applicant in Substantive Proceeding; Respondent to Order for Examination: Maria Bernadette Johnson; Respondent in Substantive Proceeding; Applicant for Order for Examination: Craig Bryan Johnson
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
22 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Post Judgment Enforcement (order for Examination Under High Court Rules 2016) / Examination Hearing and Judicial Rulings (post Judgment)
Outcome
Judge ruled the 52-week period is measured from the date of the examination; ordered the judgment debtor to produce specified documents including company financial information for the companies wholly owned by the debtor, subject to confidentiality conditions; declined to make an immediate arrest order but reserved...
Legal Topics
Order for Examination, Rule 17.12 High Court Rules 2016, Production of Company Financial Information, Arrest Order Under R 17.18, Valuation of Shareholdings
Civil Procedure Enforcement of Judgments Company Law Family/property Law Order for Examination Rule 17.12 High Court Rules 2016 Production of Company Financial Information Arrest Order Under R 17.18 +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maria Bernadette Johnson

Applicant in Substantive Proceeding; Respondent to Order for Examination

Craig Bryan Johnson

Respondent in Substantive Proceeding; Applicant for Order for Examination

Procedural Posture

Post Judgment Enforcement (order for Examination Under High Court Rules 2016) / Examination Hearing and Judicial Rulings (post Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the phrase "preceding 52 weeks" is measured from the date the order was made or from the date of the examination hearing
  2. 2 Whether a judgment debtor must produce financial information of companies wholly owned by the debtor for purposes of valuing the debtor's shareholdings
  3. 3 Whether the information sought is for an improper or collateral purpose (abuse of process)

Ratio Decidendi

"Preceding 52 weeks" is to be calculated from the date of the examination hearing, not the date the order was sealed; financial information of companies wholly owned by the judgment debtor is relevant to valuing the debtor's shareholdings and therefore must be produced by the debtor for the purposes of enforcement, subject to protective conditions on disclosure; no immediate arrest order was made but arrest under r 17.18 will follow if the debtor fails to comply with the production orders by the specified deadline.

Court Disposition

Judge ruled the 52-week period is measured from the date of the examination; ordered the judgment debtor to produce specified documents including company financial information for the companies wholly owned by the debtor, subject to confidentiality conditions; declined to make an immediate arrest order but reserved...

Orders

  • To the extent not already provided, respondent to produce all documents referred to in Schedule 1 to the applicant's submissions by 5:00 pm Tuesday 5 September 2023
  • Documents relating to the companies (Little School Limited, Little School (St Heliers) Limited and Life Learning Aotearoa Limited) are to be provided to applicant's counsel and may be disclosed to an accountant for analysis on behalf of the applicant; those documents are not to be disclosed to the applicant personally