HARVEY v HEEMAN & ANOR [2019] NZHC 3131

HARVEY v HEEMAN & ANOR [2019] NZHC 3131

The without‑notice interim injunction application was dismissed because the applicants did not demonstrate that requiring notice would cause undue delay or prejudice given the auction date left time for service and a short‑notice hearing; Pickwick service is insufficient as a substitute for full opportunity to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] NZHC 3131
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Glenn Raymond Harvey; Applicant/defendant: Darren Heeman; Applicant/defendant: Deanna Maria Heeman
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
29 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Interim Injunction (without Notice)
Outcome
Without‑notice application dismissed; interim injunction not granted on a without‑notice basis; matter to proceed on notice with abridged timelines and a short hearing listed.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunction, Sale Order, Enforcement, Compensation for Land, Service on a Pickwick Basis
Civil Procedure Enforcement of Judgment Property Law Interim Injunction Sale Order Enforcement Compensation for Land Service on a Pickwick Basis

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Glenn Raymond Harvey

Plaintiff/respondent

Darren Heeman

Applicant/defendant

Deanna Maria Heeman

Applicant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Interim Injunction (without Notice)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court should hear and grant an interim injunction without notice under HCR 7.46
  2. 2 Whether Pickwick service is an adequate substitute for full notice in these circumstances
  3. 3 Whether sums awarded on appeal (costs and remitted compensation) should be set off against the judgment being enforced by sale

Ratio Decidendi

The without‑notice interim injunction application was dismissed because the applicants did not demonstrate that requiring notice would cause undue delay or prejudice given the auction date left time for service and a short‑notice hearing; Pickwick service is insufficient as a substitute for full opportunity to respond, so the correct course is to serve the respondent, abridge time for opposition, and list a hearing on short notice.

Court Disposition

Without‑notice application dismissed; interim injunction not granted on a without‑notice basis; matter to proceed on notice with abridged timelines and a short hearing listed.

Orders

  • Without‑notice application for interim injunction dismissed
  • All documents filed in support of the interim injunction to be forthwith served on Mr Harvey via his solicitor Duncan King Solicitors with a copy to his counsel Michael Keall