MARAC FINANCE LIMITED V MURRAY JOHN GREER HC AK CIV-2010-404-4957

MARAC FINANCE LIMITED V MURRAY JOHN GREER HC AK CIV-2010-404-4957

The court declined the defendants' application for an adjournment because there were no compelling circumstances justifying further delay given the existing timetable, the prejudice to the plaintiffs from delay, and the view that receivers should be able to form a view on indemnity within the available time; defendants were ordered to file submissions by 5.00 pm on 19 January 2011.

Citation
openlaw-4b449c17_4597_42bf_a893_3c04894104e4.pdf
Parties
First Plaintiff: Marac Finance Limited; Second Plaintiffs: Kerryn Downey; Second Plaintiffs: Alan Isaac; First Defendant: Murray John Greer; Second Defendant: Equitable Property Holdings Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
11 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Summary Judgment Application / Application for Summary Judgment and Defendants' Application for Adjournment
Outcome
Application for adjournment declined; defendants ordered to file submissions by 5.00 pm on 19 January 2011
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Adjournment, Indemnity, Change of Position, General Security Deed, Rental Recovery
Equity Property Mortgage Law Civil Procedure Receivership Summary Judgment Adjournment Indemnity +3 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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marac Finance Limited

First Plaintiff

Kerryn Downey

Second Plaintiffs

Alan Isaac

Second Plaintiffs

Murray John Greer

First Defendant

Equitable Property Holdings Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Summary Judgment Application / Application for Summary Judgment and Defendants' Application for Adjournment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Marac as GSD holder or EPHL as mortgagee is entitled to rent
  2. 2 Whether receivers/beneficial fund will indemnify the defendants and whether that affects defence
  3. 3 Whether adjournment is warranted given timetable and prejudice to plaintiff

Ratio Decidendi

The court declined the defendants' application for an adjournment because there were no compelling circumstances justifying further delay given the existing timetable, the prejudice to the plaintiffs from delay, and the view that receivers should be able to form a view on indemnity within the available time; defendants were ordered to file submissions by 5.00 pm on 19 January 2011.

Court Disposition

Application for adjournment declined; defendants ordered to file submissions by 5.00 pm on 19 January 2011

Orders

  • Adjournment application declined
  • Defendants to file submissions by 5:00 p.m. on 19 January 2011