GOWDEY v HESELTINE [2021] NZHC 1303

GOWDEY v HESELTINE [2021] NZHC 1303

When the California Court of Appeal overturned the US judgment, there ceased to be a foreign judgment capable of enforcement in New Zealand; accordingly the summary judgment claim based on enforcement could not proceed and the statement of claim was struck out under r 15.1(1), and defendants were entitled to costs including 2B costs for opposing summary judgment, a 50% uplift for the stay application, and costs for their costs memoranda, totaling $35,308.

Citation
[2021] NZHC 1303
Parties
Plaintiff: David Russell Gowdey; First Defendant: John David Heseltine; Second Defendant: Bridget Alison McNeil; Third Defendant: CB Trustees (2013) Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
3 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Enforcement of Foreign Judgment (summary Judgment) / Costs Judgment Following Dismissal/strike Out
Outcome
Proceeding dismissed; statement of claim struck out pursuant to r 15.1(1); defendants awarded costs and disbursements totalling $35,308.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Stay Application, Striking Out, Effect of Foreign Appellate Reversal, Costs Uplift
Civil Procedure Conflict of Laws Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Costs Law Summary Judgment Stay Application Striking Out Effect of Foreign Appellate Reversal +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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Russell Gowdey

Plaintiff

John David Heseltine

First Defendant

Bridget Alison McNeil

Second Defendant

CB Trustees (2013) Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Enforcement of Foreign Judgment (summary Judgment) / Costs Judgment Following Dismissal/strike Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a foreign sealed judgment from California remained enforceable in New Zealand after reversal by the California Court of Appeal
  2. 2 Whether defendants were entitled to costs for opposing summary judgment and for their stay application following the foreign appellate judgment
  3. 3 Whether the proceeding should be stayed pending further US proceedings or struck out under High Court Rules r 15.1(1)

Ratio Decidendi

When the California Court of Appeal overturned the US judgment, there ceased to be a foreign judgment capable of enforcement in New Zealand; accordingly the summary judgment claim based on enforcement could not proceed and the statement of claim was struck out under r 15.1(1), and defendants were entitled to costs including 2B costs for opposing summary judgment, a 50% uplift for the stay application, and costs for their costs memoranda, totaling $35,308.

Court Disposition

Proceeding dismissed; statement of claim struck out pursuant to r 15.1(1); defendants awarded costs and disbursements totalling $35,308.

Orders

  • Proceeding dismissed and statement of claim struck out pursuant to High Court Rules r 15.1(1).
  • Defendants awarded costs and disbursements in the amount of $35,308 (including 2B costs and disbursements of $31,962, 50% uplift on the stay application estimated at $2,390, and costs for costs memoranda of $956).