LMLW LIMITED v ARMSTRONG MURRAY [2017] NZHC 2000

LMLW LIMITED v ARMSTRONG MURRAY [2017] NZHC 2000

The Court declined to direct the defendant to file a statement of defence because rule 12.10 expressly makes filing a statement optional, there was no authority to compel filing, and it was not appropriate to exercise inherent jurisdiction to require a defence in these circumstances.

Citation
[2017] NZHC 2000
Parties
Plaintiff: LMLW LIMITED; Defendant: ARMSTRONG MURRAY
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
21 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Interlocutory Application / Pre Hearing Timetabling Directions
Outcome
Application to direct defendant to file a statement of defence declined.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Statement of Defence, High Court Rules R12.10, Timetabling Directions, Venue Challenge
Civil Procedure High Court Practice Legal Profession Summary Judgment Statement of Defence High Court Rules R12.10 Timetabling Directions Venue Challenge

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LMLW LIMITED

Plaintiff

ARMSTRONG MURRAY

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Interlocutory Application / Pre Hearing Timetabling Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court can compel a defendant to file a statement of defence when rule 12.10 makes filing optional
  2. 2 Whether the defendant (a firm of solicitors) should be directed to file a statement of defence prior to a summary judgment hearing
  3. 3 Whether compelling a statement of defence would prejudice venue challenge rights

Ratio Decidendi

The Court declined to direct the defendant to file a statement of defence because rule 12.10 expressly makes filing a statement optional, there was no authority to compel filing, and it was not appropriate to exercise inherent jurisdiction to require a defence in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Application to direct defendant to file a statement of defence declined.

Orders

  • Defendant to file and serve any remaining and further affidavits in support of its opposition to the plaintiff's application by 25 August 2017.
  • Plaintiff to file and serve any reply affidavits by 8 September 2017.