VERENA COLLEEN RYAN v STUART JAMES LOBB [2023] NZHC 2452

VERENA COLLEEN RYAN v STUART JAMES LOBB [2023] NZHC 2452

The stay application was dismissed because WAG's position was adequately secured by the receiver's proposed withholding of specified sums from Mr Lobb's share; the Court lacked jurisdiction to withhold sums from Ms Ryan who was not subject to the relevant appealed orders; the Mortgage Discharge Order was released and the withheld stakeholder funds must be held until disposition of the appeal or further Court order.

Citation
[2023] NZHC 2452
Parties
First Plaintiff: VERENA COLLEEN RYAN; Second Plaintiff: DIGBY JOHN NOYCE; First Defendant: STUART JAMES LOBB; Second Defendant: LOCKHART TRUSTEE SERVICES NO. 56 LIMITED; Third Defendant: WAG TRUSTEES (2020) LIMITED
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
1 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil (high Court) / Application for Stay of Execution and Directions Following June 19, 2023 Judgment
Outcome
Application for stay dismissed; receiver's proposed withholding and payment orders made; Mortgage Discharge Order released; costs awarded against WAG on an uplifted 2B basis.
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Mortgage Discharge, Receiver's Sale, Stakeholder Funds, Costs Uplift
Property Law Trusts Civil Procedure Mortgage Law Appeal Stay of Execution Mortgage Discharge Receiver's Sale +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

VERENA COLLEEN RYAN

First Plaintiff

DIGBY JOHN NOYCE

Second Plaintiff

STUART JAMES LOBB

First Defendant

LOCKHART TRUSTEE SERVICES NO. 56 LIMITED

Second Defendant

WAG TRUSTEES (2020) LIMITED

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (high Court) / Application for Stay of Execution and Directions Following June 19, 2023 Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a stay of execution of the 19 June 2023 judgment should be granted pending appeal
  2. 2 Whether withheld sums should be deducted from both Ms Ryan's and Mr Lobb's shares or only Mr Lobb's share
  3. 3 Whether the Court has jurisdiction to withhold funds from a non-party to the original order (Ms Ryan)

Ratio Decidendi

The stay application was dismissed because WAG's position was adequately secured by the receiver's proposed withholding of specified sums from Mr Lobb's share; the Court lacked jurisdiction to withhold sums from Ms Ryan who was not subject to the relevant appealed orders; the Mortgage Discharge Order was released and the withheld stakeholder funds must be held until disposition of the appeal or further Court order.

Court Disposition

Application for stay dismissed; receiver's proposed withholding and payment orders made; Mortgage Discharge Order released; costs awarded against WAG on an uplifted 2B basis.

Orders

  • Receiver to pay WAG NZD 1400000 in cleared funds promptly following settlement of sale of the Property
  • Receiver to withhold from net sale proceeds a Stakeholder Amount comprising: NZD 105963.75 (difference between NZD 1505963.75 and NZD 1400000) and any sum due to Norfolk Nominees Limited by WAG by way of accrued interest on NZD 1363535.75, provided that if net sale proceeds are less the Stakeholder Amount will be...