PRUDENTIAL MORTGAGE NOMINEES LTD V RIVERWAY COURIERS LTD AND ORS HC NAP CIV 2008-441-000313

PRUDENTIAL MORTGAGE NOMINEES LTD V RIVERWAY COURIERS LTD AND ORS HC NAP CIV 2008-441-000313

The defendants failed to obtain leave to file their opposition out of time and the material they proffered did not disclose an arguable defence; the plaintiff proved advances were made and therefore was entitled to summary judgment for the claimed debt and costs against all three defendants.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
openlaw-2faccdd1_0751_45d6_ae90_a0b942be6c5d.pdf
Parties
Plaintiff: Prudential Mortgage Nominees Ltd; First Defendant: Riverway Couriers Ltd; Second Defendant: John Richard Irnack; Third Defendant: Cheryl Kaye Giles-Pigott
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
22 September 2008
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment / Judgment on Application
Outcome
Summary judgment entered for the plaintiff against the first, second and third defendants
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Default Opposition, Guarantee Liability, Proof of Advances
Civil Procedure Debt Recovery Contract Summary Judgment Default Opposition Guarantee Liability Proof of Advances

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prudential Mortgage Nominees Ltd

Plaintiff

Riverway Couriers Ltd

First Defendant

John Richard Irnack

Second Defendant

Cheryl Kaye Giles-Pigott

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment / Judgment on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants should be granted leave to file notice of opposition out of time
  2. 2 Whether the proposed notice of opposition and affidavit disclose a bona fide triable defence to the claim
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment should be entered for the plaintiff for the claimed amount and costs

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants failed to obtain leave to file their opposition out of time and the material they proffered did not disclose an arguable defence; the plaintiff proved advances were made and therefore was entitled to summary judgment for the claimed debt and costs against all three defendants.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment entered for the plaintiff against the first, second and third defendants

Orders

  • Judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $119,300.91 against the first, second and third defendants
  • Costs awarded to plaintiff in the sum of $13,048.48