MICHAEL WILSON & PARTNERS LIMITED v SINCLAIR [2017] NZHC 250

MICHAEL WILSON & PARTNERS LIMITED v SINCLAIR [2017] NZHC 250

The Court registered the two Court of Appeal of England and Wales judgments because the affidavit and memorandum demonstrated they were eligible under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1934 and the without‑notice application was properly certified under r 7.23; consequently the formal registration order was made and the procedural regime for setting aside (r 23.15) governs the period for challenge and suspension of enforcement.

Citation
[2017] NZHC 250
Parties
Judgment Creditor: MICHAEL WILSON & PARTNERS LIMITED; First Judgment Debtor: THOMAS IAN SINCLAIR; Second Judgment Debtor: SOKOL HOLDINGS INC; Third Judgment Debtor: JOHN FORSTER EMMOTT
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
23 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Registration of Foreign Judgments Under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1934 / Application for Registration Filed Without Notice (certified Under R 7.23 High Court Rules)
Outcome
Application granted; two foreign judgments ordered registered.
Legal Topics
Registration of Foreign Judgments, Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1934, High Court Rules Without Notice Applications and Setting Aside
Civil Procedure Enforcement of Judgments Private International Law Registration of Foreign Judgments Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1934 High Court Rules Without Notice Applications and Setting Aside

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MICHAEL WILSON & PARTNERS LIMITED

Judgment Creditor

THOMAS IAN SINCLAIR

First Judgment Debtor

SOKOL HOLDINGS INC

Second Judgment Debtor

JOHN FORSTER EMMOTT

Third Judgment Debtor

Procedural Posture

Registration of Foreign Judgments Under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1934 / Application for Registration Filed Without Notice (certified Under R 7.23 High Court Rules)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether two Court of Appeal of England and Wales judgments are eligible for registration under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1934
  2. 2 Whether registration should be granted on an application filed without notice
  3. 3 What timeframe and consequences apply for an application to set aside registration and for enforcement pending that period

Ratio Decidendi

The Court registered the two Court of Appeal of England and Wales judgments because the affidavit and memorandum demonstrated they were eligible under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1934 and the without‑notice application was properly certified under r 7.23; consequently the formal registration order was made and the procedural regime for setting aside (r 23.15) governs the period for challenge and suspension of enforcement.

Court Disposition

Application granted; two foreign judgments ordered registered.

Orders

  • Order for registration of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales judgments dated 13 January 2017 and 7 February 2017 in the form submitted by the judgment creditor
  • Application to set aside the registration must be made within 30 working days from service of notice of registration (pursuant to r 23.15 High Court Rules)