TEA CUSTODIANS (BLUESTONE) LIMITED V EASTVIEW CONSTRUCTIONS (ALBANY) LIMITED AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2008-404-006619

TEA CUSTODIANS (BLUESTONE) LIMITED V EASTVIEW CONSTRUCTIONS (ALBANY) LIMITED AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2008-404-006619

The debt was admitted, no defence was apparent, and the second defendant's reasons for adjournment (a conditional development and a separate claim against a former partner) did not constitute sufficient grounds to invoke the narrow residual discretion to refuse summary judgment; accordingly judgment was entered for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
openlaw-461e786c_92d0_4f0a_b966_812f426b29c3.pdf
Parties
Plaintiff: Tea Custodians (Bluestone) Limited; First Defendant: Eastview Constructions (Albany) Limited; Second Defendant: David Paul Buckley
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
19 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application (debt Recovery and Enforcement) / Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the first and second defendants jointly and severally.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Adjournment, Guarantee, Possession Order, Interest, Costs
Civil Procedure Debt Recovery Property Law Enforcement Summary Judgment Adjournment Guarantee Possession Order +2 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tea Custodians (Bluestone) Limited

Plaintiff

Eastview Constructions (Albany) Limited

First Defendant

David Paul Buckley

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application (debt Recovery and Enforcement) / Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment should be entered where debt is admitted and no defence is raised
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise its residual discretion to adjourn entering judgment
  3. 3 Whether a short adjournment is justified to enable a conditional financing/project to proceed

Ratio Decidendi

The debt was admitted, no defence was apparent, and the second defendant's reasons for adjournment (a conditional development and a separate claim against a former partner) did not constitute sufficient grounds to invoke the narrow residual discretion to refuse summary judgment; accordingly judgment was entered for the plaintiff and ancillary orders made.

Court Disposition

Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the first and second defendants jointly and severally.

Orders

  • Judgment for plaintiff against the first and second defendants jointly and severally in the sum of NZD 3,540,492.78.
  • Interest on that sum in the amount of NZD 86,840.04.