MCKAY BUILDERS LTD v MCKAY [2019] NZHC 1503

MCKAY BUILDERS LTD v MCKAY [2019] NZHC 1503

Because the judgment creditors obtained judgment, the charging orders were due to lapse, the liable parties consented and were actively attempting to realise funds despite breaching the settlement, the Court exercised its discretion and extended the charging orders for two years as being in the interests of justice...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] NZHC 1503
Parties
First Plaintiff: McKay Builders Limited (in liquidation); Second Plaintiff (liquidator): Vivien Judith Madsen-Ries; Second Plaintiff (liquidator): Henry David Levin; First Defendant: Paul John McKay; Second Defendant: Kim Yvonne McKay
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
28 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Enforcement: Charging Order Extension / Without Notice Application (interlocutory)
Outcome
Charging orders extended for two years to 19 July 2021
Legal Topics
Charging Orders, Extension of Orders, Judgment Enforcement, Settlement Deed Breach
Civil Enforcement Insolvency Property Law Charging Orders Extension of Orders Judgment Enforcement Settlement Deed Breach

Source-derived case record

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

McKay Builders Limited (in liquidation)

First Plaintiff

Vivien Judith Madsen-Ries

Second Plaintiff (liquidator)

Henry David Levin

Second Plaintiff (liquidator)

Paul John McKay

First Defendant

Kim Yvonne McKay

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Enforcement: Charging Order Extension / Without Notice Application (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether charging orders should be extended beyond two years under the High Court Rules
  2. 2 Whether extension is appropriate on a without notice basis
  3. 3 Effect of parties' consent on the extension application

Ratio Decidendi

Because the judgment creditors obtained judgment, the charging orders were due to lapse, the liable parties consented and were actively attempting to realise funds despite breaching the settlement, the Court exercised its discretion and extended the charging orders for two years as being in the interests of justice on a without notice basis.

Court Disposition

Charging orders extended for two years to 19 July 2021

Orders

  • Charging order over 26 Sinclair Street, New Brighton, Christchurch (Identifier 231621 Canterbury) extended to 19 July 2021
  • Charging order over 26a Sinclair Street, New Brighton, Christchurch (Identifier 231620 Canterbury) extended to 19 July 2021