AUTO SOUNDS AND ALARMS LTD (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND LIQUIDATION) v CRONE [2013] NZHC 3534

AUTO SOUNDS AND ALARMS LTD (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND LIQUIDATION) v CRONE [2013] NZHC 3534

The application for a stay was declined because the plaintiffs were assessed as being able, with effort, to pay the judgment (equity in home, income from business, security already held), the appeal would not be rendered nugatory by refusing a stay, and the successful party (Mr Crone) would be able to refund any payment if the appeal succeeded; on balance of convenience the stay was refused.

Citation
[2013] NZHC 3534
Parties
First Plaintiff: AUTO SOUNDS AND ALARMS LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND LIQUIDATION); Second Plaintiff: GRAEME WILLIAM MILLS; Second Plaintiff: KAREN ANN MILLS; First Defendant: STEPHEN CRONE; Second Defendant: SCITUATE LIMITED
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
20 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil (stay of Execution Pending Appeal) / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal After Judgment of 28 May 2013
Outcome
Application for stay of execution of judgment declined
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Security for Costs, Appealability, Bankruptcy Notices, Balance of Convenience
Civil Procedure Appeal Enforcement Insolvency/bankruptcy Costs Stay of Execution Security for Costs Appealability +2 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AUTO SOUNDS AND ALARMS LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND LIQUIDATION)

First Plaintiff

GRAEME WILLIAM MILLS

Second Plaintiff

KAREN ANN MILLS

Second Plaintiff

STEPHEN CRONE

First Defendant

SCITUATE LIMITED

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (stay of Execution Pending Appeal) / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal After Judgment of 28 May 2013

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant a stay of execution of judgment pending appeal
  2. 2 Whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory without a stay
  3. 3 Whether the applicants can meet the judgment debt

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a stay was declined because the plaintiffs were assessed as being able, with effort, to pay the judgment (equity in home, income from business, security already held), the appeal would not be rendered nugatory by refusing a stay, and the successful party (Mr Crone) would be able to refund any payment if the appeal succeeded; on balance of convenience the stay was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for stay of execution of judgment declined

Orders

  • Application for stay of execution of judgment denied
  • Execution of judgment of 28 May 2013 may proceed