ALMOND v READ & ORS [2016] NZHC 2137

ALMOND v READ & ORS [2016] NZHC 2137

Application for stay denied because the Court was not satisfied that a substantial miscarriage of justice would be likely if the judgment were enforced: the High Court judgment had been strongly endorsed by the Court of Appeal; the defendant had previously consented to the lifting of the interim stay and to sale processes; the plaintiffs (including an elderly plaintiff) would suffer prejudice from further delay; and the defendant's grounds were unlikely to meet the high threshold for Supreme Court leave or exceptional circumstances.

Citation
[2016] NZHC 2137
Parties
Applicant/defendant: Janferie Maeve Almond; First Respondent/first Plaintiff: Bruce James Read; Second Respondent/second Plaintiff: Gladys Read; Third Respondent/third Plaintiff: Christopher John Read
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
8 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Property Dispute (constructive Trust) / Application for Stay of Enforcement Pending Supreme Court Leave Application
Outcome
Application for stay of enforcement declined
Legal Topics
Constructive Trust, Stay of Enforcement, Leave to Appeal, Direct Appeal to Supreme Court, Miscarriage of Justice
Property Law Equity Civil Procedure Appeal Constructive Trust Stay of Enforcement Leave to Appeal Direct Appeal to Supreme Court +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Janferie Maeve Almond

Applicant/defendant

Bruce James Read

First Respondent/first Plaintiff

Gladys Read

Second Respondent/second Plaintiff

Christopher John Read

Third Respondent/third Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Property Dispute (constructive Trust) / Application for Stay of Enforcement Pending Supreme Court Leave Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a stay of enforcement should be granted under r 17.29 High Court Rules
  2. 2 Whether a substantial miscarriage of justice would be likely if the judgment were enforced
  3. 3 Whether defendant's proposed direct appeal to the Supreme Court meets the high threshold and exceptional circumstances requirement

Ratio Decidendi

Application for stay denied because the Court was not satisfied that a substantial miscarriage of justice would be likely if the judgment were enforced: the High Court judgment had been strongly endorsed by the Court of Appeal; the defendant had previously consented to the lifting of the interim stay and to sale processes; the plaintiffs (including an elderly plaintiff) would suffer prejudice from further delay; and the defendant's grounds were unlikely to meet the high threshold for Supreme Court leave or exceptional circumstances.

Court Disposition

Application for stay of enforcement declined

Orders

  • Application for stay of enforcement declined