GILLETTE v GREEN [2018] NZHC 431

GILLETTE v GREEN [2018] NZHC 431

Because the parties disputed the quantum of costs necessary to discharge the charge and settlement could not complete with the charge on title, the Court ordered the sum secured by the charging order ($5,233) paid into Court and set procedures for resolving the costs dispute on the papers; the discharge may only be...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] NZHC 431
Parties
Plaintiff: Nathan Daniel Gillette; First Defendant: Thomas Patton Green; Second Defendant: Roofpower Installations Limited (formerly known as Sunpower Limited)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
14 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Enforcement Charging Order and Costs / Interlocutory Applications (application to Discharge Charging Order; Payment Into Court; Freezing Order Matters)
Outcome
Charging order to remain pending payment of the secured sum into Court; sum of $5,233 to be paid into Court and held in an interest bearing account; procedures set for resolving costs on the papers; discharge to be registered only upon contemporaneous cleared payment and undertaking.
Legal Topics
Charging Order, Freezing Order, Payment Into Court, Discharge of Charge, Costs Assessment
Civil Procedure Enforcement Property Law Costs Charging Order Freezing Order Payment Into Court Discharge of Charge +1 more

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

Parties

Nathan Daniel Gillette

Plaintiff

Thomas Patton Green

First Defendant

Roofpower Installations Limited (formerly known as Sunpower Limited)

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Enforcement Charging Order and Costs / Interlocutory Applications (application to Discharge Charging Order; Payment Into Court; Freezing Order Matters)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the charging order should be discharged without notice
  2. 2 Whether the sum secured by the charging order should be paid into Court pending resolution of a costs dispute
  3. 3 Proper process for enforcement of an Employment Relations Authority determination

Ratio Decidendi

Because the parties disputed the quantum of costs necessary to discharge the charge and settlement could not complete with the charge on title, the Court ordered the sum secured by the charging order ($5,233) paid into Court and set procedures for resolving the costs dispute on the papers; the discharge may only be registered contemporaneously with cleared payment and appropriate undertakings.

Court Disposition

Charging order to remain pending payment of the secured sum into Court; sum of $5,233 to be paid into Court and held in an interest bearing account; procedures set for resolving costs on the papers; discharge to be registered only upon contemporaneous cleared payment and undertaking.

Orders

  • The sum of $5,233 secured by the charging order is to be paid into the High Court at Nelson and held pending further order of the Court
  • Stallard Law Ltd may present for registration at LINZ an order discharging the charging order only contemporaneously with payment of the full amount of the charging order into the High Court at Nelson and cleared funds for the personal undertaking that the funds will not be reversed