REID v CARTERTON AUTO COURT LTD [2014] NZHC 2372

REID v CARTERTON AUTO COURT LTD [2014] NZHC 2372

The vehicle's return to McKenzie Motors did not constitute a taking of possession or a voluntary return under s36A of the Credit (Repossession) Act 1997; therefore the Act's post-possession obligations did not apply, there was no evidence of wilful statutory or criminal breach by the respondent, the applicants' fraud and deception allegations failed, and all relief was declined; costs awarded to the respondent.

Citation
[2014] NZHC 2372
Parties
Applicants: JAMES ROBERT REID and GRAEME FREDERICK HALE as trustees of THE FREDERICK FRANK TRUST; First Respondent: CARTERTON AUTO COURT LIMITED trading as MCKENZIE MOTORS
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
29 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment (reserved Decision Delivered)
Outcome
All aspects of the applicants' claims for relief are declined
Legal Topics
Repossession, Voluntary Return of Goods (s36 A), Post Possession Notice, Power of Sale, Default Judgment and Enforcement, Fraud and Obtaining by Deception, Unconscionability, Costs
Credit (repossession) Law Property Law Civil Procedure Criminal Law Bankruptcy Law Repossession Voluntary Return of Goods (s36 A) Post Possession Notice +5 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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JAMES ROBERT REID and GRAEME FREDERICK HALE as trustees of THE FREDERICK FRANK TRUST

Applicants

CARTERTON AUTO COURT LIMITED trading as MCKENZIE MOTORS

First Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment (reserved Decision Delivered)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the return of the vehicle constituted a taking of possession or a voluntary return under the Credit (Repossession) Act 1997
  2. 2 Whether the Act's post-possession procedures were triggered and non-compliance amounted to unlawful or criminal conduct
  3. 3 Whether the first respondent fraudulently used the credit contract or statement of claim to obtain a valuable consideration (Crimes Act offences)

Ratio Decidendi

The vehicle's return to McKenzie Motors did not constitute a taking of possession or a voluntary return under s36A of the Credit (Repossession) Act 1997; therefore the Act's post-possession obligations did not apply, there was no evidence of wilful statutory or criminal breach by the respondent, the applicants' fraud and deception allegations failed, and all relief was declined; costs awarded to the respondent.

Court Disposition

All aspects of the applicants' claims for relief are declined

Orders

  • Applicants' claims dismissed
  • First respondent awarded costs and disbursements; if quantum not agreed, first respondent to file memorandum within 28 days and applicants to respond within 21 days