GRANT AND KHOV AS LIQUIDATORS OF RANOLF COMPANY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v BHANA [2016] NZHC 2352

GRANT AND KHOV AS LIQUIDATORS OF RANOLF COMPANY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v BHANA [2016] NZHC 2352

Credible, corroborated evidence of personal service by a process server and investigator established beyond reasonable doubt that both respondents received notice of the 21 October 2015 hearing; respondents' denials were not credible, so the prior finding of contempt for non‑compliance with Woolford J's orders is upheld and penalties are to be set at a separate hearing.

Citation
[2016] NZHC 2352
Parties
Applicant (liquidator): Damien Grant; Applicant (liquidator): Steven Khov; First Respondent: Stephen Bhana; Second Respondent: Jasu Mati Bhana
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
4 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court (interlocutory) / Post‑hearing Judgment Confirming Contempt; Penalty Hearing Scheduled
Outcome
Finding of contempt for non‑compliance with Woolford J's orders upheld; penalties to be determined at a separate, scheduled hearing.
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Compliance With Court Orders, Penalties for Contempt, Natural Justice
Contempt of Court Insolvency Civil Procedure Service of Process Compliance With Court Orders Penalties for Contempt Natural Justice

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Damien Grant

Applicant (liquidator)

Steven Khov

Applicant (liquidator)

Stephen Bhana

First Respondent

Jasu Mati Bhana

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt of Court (interlocutory) / Post‑hearing Judgment Confirming Contempt; Penalty Hearing Scheduled

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents had notice of the 21 October 2015 hearing
  2. 2 Whether the earlier finding of contempt for non‑compliance with Woolford J's order should stand
  3. 3 Whether and what penalties should be fixed for contempt

Ratio Decidendi

Credible, corroborated evidence of personal service by a process server and investigator established beyond reasonable doubt that both respondents received notice of the 21 October 2015 hearing; respondents' denials were not credible, so the prior finding of contempt for non‑compliance with Woolford J's orders is upheld and penalties are to be set at a separate hearing.

Court Disposition

Finding of contempt for non‑compliance with Woolford J's orders upheld; penalties to be determined at a separate, scheduled hearing.

Orders

  • Applicants to file and serve written submissions on penalties by 14 October 2016
  • Respondents may file submissions in response by 25 October 2016