FITZPATRICK AND ANOR V LEBOWSKI HOLDINGS LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) AND ORS HC AK CIV 2006-404-0003

FITZPATRICK AND ANOR V LEBOWSKI HOLDINGS LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) AND ORS HC AK CIV 2006-404-0003

Dismiss the first defendant's summary judgment application because the defendant is in receivership with no material demonstrating a real prospect the proceedings would be prosecuted if adjourned, and because the application has hindered the plaintiffs' ability to progress the case; reserve costs to be determined later.

Citation
openlaw-64d9d6f1_5fc6_4525_ab9b_5925a31aaae3.pdf
Parties
Plaintiff: Laurence Fitzpatrick; Plaintiff: Lena Boyce; First Defendant/applicant: Lebowski Holdings Limited (in receivership); Second Defendant: Auckland City Council; Third Defendant: House Appraisals Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
5 September 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Application for Summary Judgment / Interlocutory Hearing (summary Judgment)
Outcome
Application for summary judgment dismissed; costs reserved; timetable and disclosure deadlines confirmed.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Receivership, Adjournment, Reservation of Costs, Timetable and Disclosure, Limitation Defence
Civil Procedure Company Law Insolvency Costs Summary Judgment Receivership Adjournment Reservation of Costs +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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Laurence Fitzpatrick

Plaintiff

Lena Boyce

Plaintiff

Lebowski Holdings Limited (in receivership)

First Defendant/applicant

Auckland City Council

Second Defendant

House Appraisals Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Application for Summary Judgment / Interlocutory Hearing (summary Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to adjourn or dismiss the first defendant's summary judgment application given the defendant's receivership status
  2. 2 Whether costs should be reserved following dismissal of the summary judgment application
  3. 3 Whether existing timetable orders should be maintained and deadlines for affidavit of documents fixed

Ratio Decidendi

Dismiss the first defendant's summary judgment application because the defendant is in receivership with no material demonstrating a real prospect the proceedings would be prosecuted if adjourned, and because the application has hindered the plaintiffs' ability to progress the case; reserve costs to be determined later.

Court Disposition

Application for summary judgment dismissed; costs reserved; timetable and disclosure deadlines confirmed.

Orders

  • Application for summary judgment dismissed.
  • Costs reserved.