HEENAN & ORS FOR THE HEENAN FAMLY TRUST V O T ALPERS & ORS HC CHCH CIV 2001-409-000842

HEENAN & ORS FOR THE HEENAN FAMLY TRUST V O T ALPERS & ORS HC CHCH CIV 2001-409-000842

Because the proceeding was stayed the Court could not entertain the strike out application except insofar as it related to lifting the stay; Mr Heenan's failure to file a compliant notice of opposition meant he was not entitled to be heard on the unopposed application; r10.22 did not justify appointing counsel...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
openlaw-414efcc9_61f5_4e00_8695_24a9c6b5560a.pdf
Parties
Plaintiffs/respondents: David Stanley Heenan & Ors for the Heenan Family Trust; Defendants/applicants: O T Alpers & Ors
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
11 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Interlocutory Strike Out Application / Interlocutory Hearing; Directions and Timetable; Proceeding Stayed
Outcome
Proceeding remains stayed; plaintiff not entitled to be heard on the unopposed strike out application; request to appoint counsel assisting refused; defendants granted leave to amend to seek lifting of the stay; directions and timetable issued.
Legal Topics
Strike Out, Stay of Proceedings, Counsel Assisting/amicus, Compliance With Filing Timetables, Leave to Amend Application, Timetable/directions
Civil Procedure Judicature Act Matters Court Practice and Procedure Strike Out Stay of Proceedings Counsel Assisting/amicus Compliance With Filing Timetables Leave to Amend Application +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Stanley Heenan & Ors for the Heenan Family Trust

Plaintiffs/respondents

O T Alpers & Ors

Defendants/applicants

Procedural Posture

Civil Interlocutory Strike Out Application / Interlocutory Hearing; Directions and Timetable; Proceeding Stayed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff's failure to file a compliant notice of opposition disentitles him to be heard
  2. 2 Whether the Court can entertain a strike out application while the proceeding is stayed
  3. 3 Whether the Court should request appointment of counsel assisting under r10.22

Ratio Decidendi

Because the proceeding was stayed the Court could not entertain the strike out application except insofar as it related to lifting the stay; Mr Heenan's failure to file a compliant notice of opposition meant he was not entitled to be heard on the unopposed application; r10.22 did not justify appointing counsel assisting to represent a civil litigant; defendants were granted leave to amend their application to include an application to lift the stay and a timetable and directions were issued.

Court Disposition

Proceeding remains stayed; plaintiff not entitled to be heard on the unopposed strike out application; request to appoint counsel assisting refused; defendants granted leave to amend to seek lifting of the stay; directions and timetable issued.

Orders

  • Defendants have leave to amend their present application and to file additional evidence, such documents to be filed and served by Friday, 14 August 2009.
  • Mr Heenan is to file and serve any notice of opposition and evidence by Tuesday, 1 September 2009.