WHITTLE v WHITTLE & Anor [2015] NZHC 2879

WHITTLE v WHITTLE & Anor [2015] NZHC 2879

Summary judgment was declined because the plaintiff failed to prove there was no arguable defence: he did not establish the mode of ownership of the debt (tenancy in common v joint tenancy) nor that the debt was repayable on demand, and he therefore failed to show entitlement to unilateral payment; accordingly judgment could not be entered and the residual discretion need not be exercised.

Citation
[2015] NZHC 2879
Parties
Plaintiff: Glenn Raymond Whittle; Defendant (trustee): Glenn Whittle; Defendant (trustee): Alexandra Jane Whittle; Defendant (corporate Trustee): Quantum Trustee Company 1003 (Trustee of the Hojag Family Trust)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
19 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Summary Judgment Application / Summary Judgment Hearing / Interlocutory
Outcome
Application for summary judgment declined
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Ownership of Debt, Tenancy in Common Vs Joint Tenancy, Demand for Payment, Set Off, Winding Up Trust, Family Court Jurisdiction
Trusts Relationship Property Civil Procedure Tax/insolvency Property Summary Judgment Ownership of Debt Tenancy in Common Vs Joint Tenancy +4 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Glenn Raymond Whittle

Plaintiff

Glenn Whittle

Defendant (trustee)

Alexandra Jane Whittle

Defendant (trustee)

Quantum Trustee Company 1003 (Trustee of the Hojag Family Trust)

Defendant (corporate Trustee)

Procedural Posture

Civil Summary Judgment Application / Summary Judgment Hearing / Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trustees owe the plaintiff a severable half share of the trust's current account debt
  2. 2 Whether the debt is held as tenants in common or jointly
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to unilateral demand and immediate repayment of his claimed share

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment was declined because the plaintiff failed to prove there was no arguable defence: he did not establish the mode of ownership of the debt (tenancy in common v joint tenancy) nor that the debt was repayable on demand, and he therefore failed to show entitlement to unilateral payment; accordingly judgment could not be entered and the residual discretion need not be exercised.

Court Disposition

Application for summary judgment declined

Orders

  • Summary judgment application declined
  • Matter adjourned to the chambers list at 2.15 pm on 10 December 2015 for initial case management if unresolved