EMMOTT v MICHAEL WILSON & PARTNERS LIMITED [2017] NZHC 592

EMMOTT v MICHAEL WILSON & PARTNERS LIMITED [2017] NZHC 592

Section 4(2) of the REJA, read with r 23.22, prevents enforcement of a registered judgment (including by charging order under r 17.42) while an application to set aside registration is pending; alternatively, leave under r 17.41 requires concrete civil‑standard evidence of intent to defeat creditors which was not proved here, therefore the interim charging order application is declined.

Citation
[2017] NZHC 592
Parties
Judgment Creditor: John Forster Emmott; Judgment Debtor: Michael Wilson & Partners Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
29 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Registration and Enforcement of Foreign Judgment Under Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1934 / Application for Interim Charging Order; Application to Set Aside Registration Pending
Outcome
Application for interim charging order declined
Legal Topics
Charging Order, Registration of Foreign Judgment, Pre Judgment Relief, Rule 17.41 High Court Rules, S 4(2) REJA
Civil Procedure Enforcement of Judgments International Enforcement Remedies High Court Rules Charging Order Registration of Foreign Judgment Pre Judgment Relief +2 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

John Forster Emmott

Judgment Creditor

Michael Wilson & Partners Limited

Judgment Debtor

Procedural Posture

Registration and Enforcement of Foreign Judgment Under Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1934 / Application for Interim Charging Order; Application to Set Aside Registration Pending

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a charging order under r 17.42 can be made while an application to set aside registration under the REJA is pending
  2. 2 Whether a pre-judgment charging order may be granted under r 17.41 where the liable party is said to be removing or transferring assets with intent to defeat a creditor
  3. 3 Whether transferring enforcement proceeds to Kazakhstan establishes the requisite intent to defeat enforcement

Ratio Decidendi

Section 4(2) of the REJA, read with r 23.22, prevents enforcement of a registered judgment (including by charging order under r 17.42) while an application to set aside registration is pending; alternatively, leave under r 17.41 requires concrete civil‑standard evidence of intent to defeat creditors which was not proved here, therefore the interim charging order application is declined.

Court Disposition

Application for interim charging order declined

Orders

  • Interim charging order application dismissed
  • Costs to follow the event on a 2B scale and a half day hearing