EQUITY LAW BARRISTERS LIMITED v G HADEN [2015] NZHC 877

EQUITY LAW BARRISTERS LIMITED v G HADEN [2015] NZHC 877

The recall application was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate the very special reasons required for recall: the matters raised were not new and could have been argued previously, there was insufficient evidence of deception or mutuality for set-off against the corporate judgment creditor, and the LCRO/NSC proceedings did not establish a present right of set-off against the judgment creditor.

Citation
[2015] NZHC 877
Parties
Judgment Creditor/respondent: Equity Law Barristers Limited; Judgment Debtor/applicant: Grace Haden
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
30 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy/recall Application Under Insolvency Act 2006 / Application to Recall a Judgment Dismissing Set Aside of a Bankruptcy Notice
Outcome
Application to recall dismissed
Legal Topics
Judgment Recall, Statutory Demand, Set Off, Costs Order, Abuse of Process, Natural Justice
Bankruptcy Law Civil Procedure Costs Law Administrative Law Judgment Recall Statutory Demand Set Off Costs Order +2 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Equity Law Barristers Limited

Judgment Creditor/respondent

Grace Haden

Judgment Debtor/applicant

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy/recall Application Under Insolvency Act 2006 / Application to Recall a Judgment Dismissing Set Aside of a Bankruptcy Notice

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether very special reasons exist to recall the prior judgment
  2. 2 Whether a valid set-off exists between sums allegedly owed by the judgment creditor and refunds ordered against the lawyer
  3. 3 Whether alleged deception regarding trading names and identity of service provider justified recall

Ratio Decidendi

The recall application was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate the very special reasons required for recall: the matters raised were not new and could have been argued previously, there was insufficient evidence of deception or mutuality for set-off against the corporate judgment creditor, and the LCRO/NSC proceedings did not establish a present right of set-off against the judgment creditor.

Court Disposition

Application to recall dismissed

Orders

  • Recall application dismissed
  • Costs awarded to respondent on a 2B basis