LLOYD AND ORS V WRIGHT HC HAM CIV 2009-419-000875

LLOYD AND ORS V WRIGHT HC HAM CIV 2009-419-000875

DK Lloyd may only act for himself and may not act as advocate for other persons or companies; the listed plaintiffs had not authorised prosecution nor taken steps to prosecute and were therefore properly dismissed from the proceeding under High Court Rules r15.2, consistent with the restrictions in the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006.

Citation
openlaw-931648f2_ade2_4f31_8d9d_fe23f6c7af11.pdf
Parties
First and Fourth Plaintiff: David Kelly Lloyd; First and Fourth Plaintiff: Alison Shona Lloyd; First Plaintiff: Roger Newton Stanich; Second Plaintiff: Lloyd Farms Limited; Third Plaintiff: Matthew David Blair Lloyd; Third Plaintiff: Patrick John Clune; Fifth Plaintiff: Heartbreak Holdings Limited; Defendant: Nicholas David Wright
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
21 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil (application to Strike Out / Dismissal for Want of Prosecution) / Case Management Hearing on Representation and Defendant's Strike Out Application
Outcome
Specified plaintiffs dismissed from the proceeding for want of prosecution
Legal Topics
Representation by Laypersons, Reserved Areas of Work Under Lawyers and Conveyancers Act, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, High Court Rules R15.2
Civil Procedure Legal Profession Regulation Company Procedure Representation by Laypersons Reserved Areas of Work Under Lawyers and Conveyancers Act Dismissal for Want of Prosecution High Court Rules R15.2

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Kelly Lloyd

First and Fourth Plaintiff

Alison Shona Lloyd

First and Fourth Plaintiff

Roger Newton Stanich

First Plaintiff

Lloyd Farms Limited

Second Plaintiff

Matthew David Blair Lloyd

Third Plaintiff

Patrick John Clune

Third Plaintiff

Heartbreak Holdings Limited

Fifth Plaintiff

Nicholas David Wright

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (application to Strike Out / Dismissal for Want of Prosecution) / Case Management Hearing on Representation and Defendant's Strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a non‑lawyer (DK Lloyd) may act as advocate for other plaintiffs including companies
  2. 2 Whether the listed plaintiffs have authorised prosecution of the proceeding
  3. 3 Whether dismissal of listed plaintiffs is justified under High Court Rules r15.2 for want of prosecution

Ratio Decidendi

DK Lloyd may only act for himself and may not act as advocate for other persons or companies; the listed plaintiffs had not authorised prosecution nor taken steps to prosecute and were therefore properly dismissed from the proceeding under High Court Rules r15.2, consistent with the restrictions in the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006.

Court Disposition

Specified plaintiffs dismissed from the proceeding for want of prosecution

Orders

  • Alison Shona Lloyd be dismissed from this proceeding.
  • Roger Newton Stanich be dismissed from this proceeding.