YINGLING v GIFFORD & ANOR [2019] NZHC 2342

YINGLING v GIFFORD & ANOR [2019] NZHC 2342

The Court vacated the scheduled hearing and exercised its case management discretion to require the first defendant to file any amended defence, set strict timelines for pleadings and evidence, and provide for either a preliminary jurisdictional hearing on causes of action three and five or allocation of a substantive fixture; costs for the late adjournment application were reserved.

Citation
[2019] NZHC 2342
Parties
Plaintiff: Randy Yingling; First Defendant: Ken John Gifford (aka Kenneth John Gifford); Second Defendant: Dean John Witters (aka Dean John Witters)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
17 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Enforcement of Foreign Judgment (civil) / Pre Trial Case Management and Interlocutory Applications; Fixture Vacated
Outcome
Hearing vacated; timetable directions issued for amended pleadings and evidence; costs reserved and submissions invited.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Security for Costs, Timetable Orders, Jurisdiction, Adjournment, Amendment of Pleadings
Civil Procedure Conflict of Laws Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Contract Fraud Summary Judgment Security for Costs Timetable Orders +3 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Randy Yingling

Plaintiff

Ken John Gifford (aka Kenneth John Gifford)

First Defendant

Dean John Witters (aka Dean John Witters)

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Enforcement of Foreign Judgment (civil) / Pre Trial Case Management and Interlocutory Applications; Fixture Vacated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Californian judgment should be enforced by summary judgment
  2. 2 Whether the foreign judgment was obtained by fraud so as to defeat enforcement
  3. 3 Whether to grant an adjournment and reallocate the fixture

Ratio Decidendi

The Court vacated the scheduled hearing and exercised its case management discretion to require the first defendant to file any amended defence, set strict timelines for pleadings and evidence, and provide for either a preliminary jurisdictional hearing on causes of action three and five or allocation of a substantive fixture; costs for the late adjournment application were reserved.

Court Disposition

Hearing vacated; timetable directions issued for amended pleadings and evidence; costs reserved and submissions invited.

Orders

  • The hearing set down for 18 September 2019 is vacated.
  • The first defendant shall within 10 working days from the date of this order file any amended statement of defence.