MALLEY & CO LAWYERS v SUNDBERG [2020] NZHC 264 .

MALLEY & CO LAWYERS v SUNDBERG [2020] NZHC 264 .

The charging order was extended because the judgment creditor took steps to enforce the judgment (negotiation and application for sale), was not inactive, and the judgment debtors' objections amount to an improper collateral attack on the formal proof judgment; therefore it was just to extend the charging order to protect the creditor and to award costs to the creditor on a 2B basis with disbursements.

Citation
[2020] NZHC 264
Parties
Judgment Creditor: Malley & Co Lawyers; First Judgment Debtor: Janine Nora Sundberg; Second Judgment Debtor: Linda Beverley Sundberg
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
26 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Charging Order Enforcement / Renewal/extension Application (heard 21 February 2020)
Outcome
Application granted; charging order extended and costs awarded to judgment creditor
Legal Topics
Charging Order, Order for Sale, Formal Proof Judgment, Renewal/extension of Charging Order, Costs
Civil Procedure Property Law Trusts and Estates Debt Enforcement Charging Order Order for Sale Formal Proof Judgment Renewal/extension of Charging Order +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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Malley & Co Lawyers

Judgment Creditor

Janine Nora Sundberg

First Judgment Debtor

Linda Beverley Sundberg

Second Judgment Debtor

Procedural Posture

Charging Order Enforcement / Renewal/extension Application (heard 21 February 2020)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the charging order should be extended/renewed
  2. 2 Whether the judgment debtors can challenge the underlying formal proof judgment by opposing the renewal application
  3. 3 Whether the judgment creditor has been inactive such that extension would be unjust

Ratio Decidendi

The charging order was extended because the judgment creditor took steps to enforce the judgment (negotiation and application for sale), was not inactive, and the judgment debtors' objections amount to an improper collateral attack on the formal proof judgment; therefore it was just to extend the charging order to protect the creditor and to award costs to the creditor on a 2B basis with disbursements.

Court Disposition

Application granted; charging order extended and costs awarded to judgment creditor

Orders

  • Charging order extended (use of the word "extended" rather than "renewed") and date of extension recorded as 21 February 2020 in place of 1 March 2020 in terms of the application dated 23 January 2020
  • Judgment debtors to pay costs of and incidental to the application on a 2B basis together with disbursements as fixed by the Registrar