WHITE v LYNCH [2014] NZHC 2901

WHITE v LYNCH [2014] NZHC 2901

The application to recall and correct the judgment was dismissed because the asserted error was not material to the decision on the interlocutory applications, there was no utility in re‑examining the evidence prior to the scheduled substantive hearing, and any factual interpretation could be reconsidered by the Judge hearing the substantive applications; accordingly recall was unnecessary.

Citation
[2014] NZHC 2901
Parties
First Plaintiff: Amanda Adele White; Second Plaintiff: Anne Leoline Emily Freeman; First Defendant; Judgment Creditor: Christopher Maurice Lynch; Second Defendant: Stuart Gordon Spence
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
20 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Interlocutory Applications / Judgment on Recall Application (interlocutory); Substantive Applications Set Down for Further Hearing
Outcome
Application to recall and correct judgment dismissed
Legal Topics
Recall of Judgment, Correction of Judgment, Debarment of Counsel, Bankruptcy Notices, Striking Out/joinder of Parties
Civil Procedure Bankruptcy Court Practice and Procedure Professional Conduct of Counsel Recall of Judgment Correction of Judgment Debarment of Counsel Bankruptcy Notices +1 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amanda Adele White

First Plaintiff

Anne Leoline Emily Freeman

Second Plaintiff

Christopher Maurice Lynch

First Defendant; Judgment Creditor

Stuart Gordon Spence

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Interlocutory Applications / Judgment on Recall Application (interlocutory); Substantive Applications Set Down for Further Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court should recall or correct an earlier interlocutory judgment under High Court Rules r 11.5
  2. 2 Whether counsel for defendants should be joined as a party and/or debarred from acting
  3. 3 Whether the particular statement about availability of banking records was erroneous and material to the decision

Ratio Decidendi

The application to recall and correct the judgment was dismissed because the asserted error was not material to the decision on the interlocutory applications, there was no utility in re‑examining the evidence prior to the scheduled substantive hearing, and any factual interpretation could be reconsidered by the Judge hearing the substantive applications; accordingly recall was unnecessary.

Court Disposition

Application to recall and correct judgment dismissed

Orders

  • Recall application dismissed
  • No order as to costs