DOBSON v MILLOY & ORS [2015] NZHC 182

DOBSON v MILLOY & ORS [2015] NZHC 182

The application to recall was dismissed because the judge had considered the solicitor's trust account alternative and found no advantage, no adequate ground of injustice or new material was shown, and no oral hearing was required or formally sought; therefore the earlier stay decision stands.

Citation
[2015] NZHC 182
Parties
Plaintiff/counterclaim Defendant: Kerry Bryan Dobson; First Defendants/counterclaim Plaintiffs: Hugh Milloy and Helen Ruth Milloy as Trustees of the Hugh Milloy Family Trust; Second Defendants/counterclaim Plaintiffs: Hugh Milloy and Helen Ruth Milloy as Trustees of the Helen Milloy Family Trust; Counterclaim Defendant: Clusevau Holdings Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
16 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Application to Stay Execution and to Recall a Judgment / Post Judgment Recall Application
Outcome
Application to recall judgment refused; earlier stay of execution remains in effect
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Recall of Judgment, Solicitor Trust Account, Security for Judgment
Civil Procedure Appeal Trusts Stay of Execution Recall of Judgment Solicitor Trust Account Security for Judgment

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kerry Bryan Dobson

Plaintiff/counterclaim Defendant

Hugh Milloy and Helen Ruth Milloy as Trustees of the Hugh Milloy Family Trust

First Defendants/counterclaim Plaintiffs

Hugh Milloy and Helen Ruth Milloy as Trustees of the Helen Milloy Family Trust

Second Defendants/counterclaim Plaintiffs

Clusevau Holdings Limited

Counterclaim Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Stay Execution and to Recall a Judgment / Post Judgment Recall Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge should recall his earlier judgment under Rule 11.9 High Court Rules
  2. 2 Whether the judgment sum could be placed in the plaintiff's solicitor's trust account as an alternative to a stay of execution
  3. 3 Whether an oral hearing was required before deciding the recall application

Ratio Decidendi

The application to recall was dismissed because the judge had considered the solicitor's trust account alternative and found no advantage, no adequate ground of injustice or new material was shown, and no oral hearing was required or formally sought; therefore the earlier stay decision stands.

Court Disposition

Application to recall judgment refused; earlier stay of execution remains in effect

Orders

  • Recall application dismissed
  • The stay of execution granted on 19 December 2014 remains in force