AURORA FISHERIES LIMITED V AKIRA HOZUMI HC NEL CIV 2010-442-511
The freezing order is to remain in force until further order; the defendant's application to vary the freezing order is adjourned to enable him to file proper affidavit evidence of his financial circumstances (and for the Court to consider the proposed $30,000 advance); any complaint about Ocean Law's conflict must...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- openlaw-ba73b733_b6b5_4a2d_b2cc_33d92571a60d.pdf
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Aurora Fisheries Limited; Defendant: Akira Hozumi
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 18 May 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Freezing Order and Summary Judgment Proceedings / Interlocutory Application to Vary Freezing Order; Adjourned
- Outcome
- Freezing order continued until further order; application to vary adjourned to 24 May 2011 in Nelson; formal procedure required to challenge Ocean Law's retainer with filing fee waived; costs reserved.
- Legal Topics
- Freezing Order, Variation of Freezing Order, Summary Judgment, Conflict of Interest in Legal Representation, Affidavit Evidence, Costs
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Aurora Fisheries Limited
Plaintiff
Akira Hozumi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Freezing Order and Summary Judgment Proceedings / Interlocutory Application to Vary Freezing Order; Adjourned
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the existing freezing order should be continued or varied to allow defendant to secure a $30,000 advance against the frozen property
- 2 Whether the defendant's application to vary should be heard without an affidavit of his financial circumstances
- 3 Whether Ocean Law has a conflict of interest that should prohibit them from acting for the plaintiff and procedure for raising that issue
Ratio Decidendi
The freezing order is to remain in force until further order; the defendant's application to vary the freezing order is adjourned to enable him to file proper affidavit evidence of his financial circumstances (and for the Court to consider the proposed $30,000 advance); any complaint about Ocean Law's conflict must be brought by formal application supported by affidavit and documentary evidence, and the Court waived any filing fee for that conflict application; costs reserved.
Court Disposition
Freezing order continued until further order; application to vary adjourned to 24 May 2011 in Nelson; formal procedure required to challenge Ocean Law's retainer with filing fee waived; costs reserved.
Orders
- Freezing order continued until further order of the Court
- Defendant's application to vary the freezing order is adjourned to the Nelson High Court on 24 May 2011
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
AURORA FISHERIES LIMITED V AKIRA HOZUMI HC NEL CIV 2010-442-511 18 May 2011IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDNELSON REGISTRYCIV 2010-442-511BETWEEN AURORA FISHERIES LIMITEDPlaintiffAND AKIRA HOZUMIDefendantHearing: 18 May 2011(Heard at Wellington)Counsel: M J Logan and H M Campbell for PlaintiffJ M Fitchett and C A Morice for DefendantJudgment: 18 May 2011JUDGMENT OF RONALD YOUNG J ON APPLICATION TO VARY FREEZING ORDERIntroduction[1] This is an application by the plaintiff to extend a freezing order with respect to a property owned by Mr Hozumi. The plaintiff is suing Mr Hozumi arising from false fishing catch returns allegedly completed by Mr Hozumi relating to fish takenunder the authority of the plaintiff's permit. The plaintiff has sought summaryjudgment.[2] The freezing order is due to expire today 18 May 2011. The defendant did not oppose the continuation of the freezing order but sought an order that he be allowed to secure an advance of $30,000 against the property, the subject of the freezing order to enable him to fund his side of this litigation. The plaintiff opposedthe defendant's application to vary the freezing order.[3] At the hearing today I adjourned the application for variation of the freezing order until next week in the Nelson High Court, 24 May 2011. The reason for the adjournment was that the defendant had not filed any affidavit as to his financial circumstances. Such an affidavit seemed to me fundamental to a consideration of whether the freezing order should be varied. The parties agreed.[4] Counsel for the defendant/applicant will endeavour to obtain an affidavit from Mr Hozumi (who resides in Japan) and present that to the Court by next week. If the matter cannot be heard next week in Nelson then I imagine an early fixture could be given in the Wellington Court. Mr Fitchett expressed concern about whether such an affidavit could be appropriately sworn before next week. High Court Rule 9.86 permits a broad range of people to swear such an affidavit overseas.[5] In the meantime, the appropriate order is that the current freezing order should continue in force until further order of the Court. The freezing order can then be varied or cancelled as Judges or Associate Judges of the High Court think fit.[6] Mr Fitchett also raised as he had in his submissions filed prior to this hearing, the question of whether Ocean Law had a conflict of interest which would prevent them from acting on behalf of the plaintiff. I advised counsel that the appropriate course was for a formal application to be made by Mr Hozumi if he wished the Court to consider whether it should direct Ocean Law not act for the plaintiff. Mr Hozumi will have to support his allegations by evidence in an affidavit including all documentary evidence which he considers appropriate. That will then give Ocean Law the opportunity to respond and the matter can then be resolved should the parties be unable to agree by a Judge.[7] Mr Fitchett mentioned part of the difficulty in making such a formal application was Mr Hozumi's current impecuniosity. He said in particular filing fees. In the circumstances I am prepared to give Mr Hozumi an exemption from any filing fee that may be required with respect to any application that Ocean Law no longer act for the plaintiff.[8] In summary, therefore:(a) the current freezing order is continued until further order of the Court;(b) Mr Hozumi's application to vary the current freezing order isadjourned to the Nelson High Court, 24 May 2011;(c) should Mr Hozumi wish to make an application that Ocean Law be prohibited from acting for the plaintiff then he will need to file an application and full affidavit explaining the circumstances that support such an application. Any filing fee for such an application is waived.[9] Costs on today's hearing are reserved._________________________Ronald Young JSolicitors:M J Logan, Partner, Ocean Law, Nelson, email: martylo@oceanlaw.co.nzJ M Fitchett, Principal, Rout Milner Fitchett, Nelson, email: john@rmf-law.co.nz