BT FUNDS MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOR V WORGER AND OTHERS HC WN CIV-2004-485-1846

BT FUNDS MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOR V WORGER AND OTHERS HC WN CIV-2004-485-1846

Given the statutory requirement under s 37AI(2) and the absence of particularised evidence from individual objectors demonstrating material prejudice, the plaintiffs satisfied the Court that subs (2) applied; therefore relief orders and default judgment were properly granted against the unresponsive objectors.

Citation
openlaw-03d8f292_97f8_4929_bd84_019635fb6937.pdf
Parties
First Plaintiff: BT Funds Management Ltd; Second Plaintiff: BT Funds Management (No 2) Limited; Defendants: Peter Worger and others
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
2 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Securities Act 1978 Relief Proceedings Under S 37 AI / Application for Default Judgment and Relief Orders Following Service on Objectors
Outcome
Default judgment entered for plaintiffs; relief orders under s 37AI(2) granted against the unresponsive objectors; ancillary procedural orders granted; no costs against unrepresented objectors.
Legal Topics
Relief Orders Under S 37 AI, Material Prejudice Test, Default Judgment, Exemption Notice Filing Requirements
Securities Law Civil Procedure Statutory Interpretation Relief Orders Under S 37 AI Material Prejudice Test Default Judgment Exemption Notice Filing Requirements

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BT Funds Management Ltd

First Plaintiff

BT Funds Management (No 2) Limited

Second Plaintiff

Peter Worger and others

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Securities Act 1978 Relief Proceedings Under S 37 AI / Application for Default Judgment and Relief Orders Following Service on Objectors

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court must grant relief under s 37AI(2) where contraventions did not materially prejudice subscribers
  2. 2 Allocation of evidential onus between applicants and individual objectors
  3. 3 Whether absence of individualized evidence of prejudice permits default relief orders

Ratio Decidendi

Given the statutory requirement under s 37AI(2) and the absence of particularised evidence from individual objectors demonstrating material prejudice, the plaintiffs satisfied the Court that subs (2) applied; therefore relief orders and default judgment were properly granted against the unresponsive objectors.

Court Disposition

Default judgment entered for plaintiffs; relief orders under s 37AI(2) granted against the unresponsive objectors; ancillary procedural orders granted; no costs against unrepresented objectors.

Orders

  • Relief orders under s 37AI(2) granted against the 52 unresponsive objectors as per paragraph 4 of the plaintiffs' application
  • Ancillary orders 1, 2 and 3 of the plaintiffs' application dated 23 October 2009 granted