GENERAL DISTRIBUTORS LTD V V HILLIARD HC CIV 2008-404-1057

GENERAL DISTRIBUTORS LTD V V HILLIARD HC CIV 2008-404-1057

Leave under s 76(2) was granted and summary judgment was entered for the plaintiff because the claim was commenced before adjudication, the claim was sustainable, the defendant withdrew opposition and presented no real defence, extensive evidence supported liability and quantum, and the defendant had been convicted...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
openlaw-374b56a5_696b_4d5f_a938_6cf962e175bd.pdf
Parties
Plaintiff: General Distributors Ltd; Defendant: Veronica Hilliard
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
16 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim for Conversion and Monies Had and Received (summary Judgment) / Summary Judgment and Leave to Continue Proceedings After Adjudication in Bankruptcy
Outcome
Summary judgment entered for plaintiff against defendant
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Conversion, Money Had and Received, Leave Under S 76 Insolvency Act 2006, Interest and Costs, Effect of Criminal Conviction on Civil Liability
Civil Litigation Insolvency Law Commercial Fraud Procedural Law Summary Judgment Conversion Money Had and Received Leave Under S 76 Insolvency Act 2006 +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

General Distributors Ltd

Plaintiff

Veronica Hilliard

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim for Conversion and Monies Had and Received (summary Judgment) / Summary Judgment and Leave to Continue Proceedings After Adjudication in Bankruptcy

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave under s 76(2) Insolvency Act 2006 should be granted to continue proceedings against an undischarged bankrupt
  2. 2 Whether the defendant has any real defence to the plaintiff's summary judgment claim under r 136(1) High Court Rules
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff has proved the quantum claimed

Ratio Decidendi

Leave under s 76(2) was granted and summary judgment was entered for the plaintiff because the claim was commenced before adjudication, the claim was sustainable, the defendant withdrew opposition and presented no real defence, extensive evidence supported liability and quantum, and the defendant had been convicted on overlapping criminal charges; judgment sum $393,665.45 with interest and costs was awarded.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment entered for plaintiff against defendant

Orders

  • Leave granted under s 76(2) Insolvency Act 2006 to continue the proceedings against the adjudicated bankrupt
  • Judgment for plaintiff against defendant in the sum of $393,665.45 for conversion and monies had and received