PICKARD V AMBROSE HC WN CIV-2003-091-143

PICKARD V AMBROSE HC WN CIV-2003-091-143

The stay of execution was dismissed because no appeal had been lodged (nor extension applied for) against the costs judgment, so there were no grounds to grant a stay; the recall was refused because the allocation error in disbursements did not create a risk of injustice sufficient to justify recall under r 11.9, which is to be exercised sparingly.

Citation
openlaw-a20ab27b_3840_42f2_9b1d_18bb7da2b646.pdf
Parties
First Plaintiff: Amanda Pickard; Second Plaintiff: Troy Taylor; First Defendant: Chas Ambrose; Second Defendant: Rinnai New Zealand Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
4 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil (costs Proceedings) / Post Judgment Applications (stay of Execution and Recall)
Outcome
Application for stay dismissed; application for recall refused.
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Recall of Judgment, Disbursements, Legal Aid and Costs, Extensions of Time for Appeal
Civil Procedure Costs Legal Services Appeals Stay of Execution Recall of Judgment Disbursements Legal Aid and Costs +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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amanda Pickard

First Plaintiff

Troy Taylor

Second Plaintiff

Chas Ambrose

First Defendant

Rinnai New Zealand Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (costs Proceedings) / Post Judgment Applications (stay of Execution and Recall)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant a stay of execution of the costs judgment pending appeal
  2. 2 Whether to recall part of the costs judgment to correct the allocation of disbursements
  3. 3 Whether absence of an appeal or extension application precludes a stay

Ratio Decidendi

The stay of execution was dismissed because no appeal had been lodged (nor extension applied for) against the costs judgment, so there were no grounds to grant a stay; the recall was refused because the allocation error in disbursements did not create a risk of injustice sufficient to justify recall under r 11.9, which is to be exercised sparingly.

Court Disposition

Application for stay dismissed; application for recall refused.

Orders

  • Application for stay of execution dismissed.
  • Application for recall of judgment refused.