WHITE v MAUBACH [2015] NZHC 2790

WHITE v MAUBACH [2015] NZHC 2790

Security for costs ordered because Ms White admitted inability to pay; the third and fourth defendants enjoy strong statutory immunities which make the pleaded claims tenuous; the plaintiff's serious allegations of dishonesty and bad faith are unsupported by reliable evidence; accordingly it is just to protect defendants by requiring security in the sum of $34,758 to cover their estimated costs.

Citation
[2015] NZHC 2790
Parties
Plaintiff: Amanda Adele White; First Defendant: Bernie Maubach; Second Defendant: Jutta Rosenblatt; Third Defendant: Jono Todd; Fourth Defendant: Martyn Boyce; Non Party: Bryre Patchell
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
11 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Damages / Enforcement Dispute / Application for Security for Costs (interim Interlocutory)
Outcome
Ordered security for costs in favour of third and fourth defendants; ancillary applications adjourned pending compliance with security and service conditions
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Statutory Immunities of Officers, Execution of Distress Warrants, Neglect by Bailiffs (s105), Abuse of Process / Res Judicata
Civil Procedure Tort Administrative Law Enforcement Law Security for Costs Statutory Immunities of Officers Execution of Distress Warrants Neglect by Bailiffs (s105) +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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amanda Adele White

Plaintiff

Bernie Maubach

First Defendant

Jutta Rosenblatt

Second Defendant

Jono Todd

Third Defendant

Martyn Boyce

Fourth Defendant

Bryre Patchell

Non Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Damages / Enforcement Dispute / Application for Security for Costs (interim Interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is reason to believe the plaintiff will be unable to pay defendants' costs
  2. 2 Whether it is just in all the circumstances to order security for costs
  3. 3 Extent and effect of statutory immunities (State Sector Act, District Court Act, Crown Proceedings Act) on plaintiff's claims

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs ordered because Ms White admitted inability to pay; the third and fourth defendants enjoy strong statutory immunities which make the pleaded claims tenuous; the plaintiff's serious allegations of dishonesty and bad faith are unsupported by reliable evidence; accordingly it is just to protect defendants by requiring security in the sum of $34,758 to cover their estimated costs.

Court Disposition

Ordered security for costs in favour of third and fourth defendants; ancillary applications adjourned pending compliance with security and service conditions

Orders

  • Security for costs to be paid in the sum of 34758 NZD in respect of third and fourth defendants
  • Application for non-party discovery adjourned pending payment of security for costs