New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Charging order before judgment

Legal area

Court

4 Oct 2021

IKON BUILDING CO-OPERATION LTD v DUMASIA [2021] NZHC 2624

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2624
Court

High Court

Ikon failed to prove both that the conditional sale was a disposition from which the defendant intended to defeat creditors and that the requisite intent existed; conversion of land into cash for adequate consideration does not, without more, establish the necessary intent to defeat payment under r17.41, therefore leave to issue a pre-judgment charging order is refused and the existing charging order is discharged.
28 Sept 2017

BLUNDELL CONCRETE LIMITED v HODGINS [2017] NZHC 2359

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2359
Court

High Court

On the interlocutory material the caveator established a reasonably arguable tracing/subrogation claim to the extent that misappropriated funds may have funded mortgage repayments, giving rise to an arguable equitable charge over the property limited to the amounts traceable (maximum $19,256.48); however the applicant failed to prove the necessary intent to defeat creditors required for a pre-judgment charging order and the application for a charging order is dismissed; an Associate Judge has jurisdiction to hear r 17.41 applications.
14 May 2015

Cox v Coughlan [2015] NZHC 1014

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1014
Court

High Court

The judge inferred from the solicitor's correspondence and advice of an imminent settlement date together with evidence of acts of bankruptcy and non-compliance that the properties were to be disposed of and that the judgment debtors intended to defeat the creditors; those findings satisfied r 17.41 and justified granting leave to issue charging orders before judgment.
11 Aug 2009

STRAND CORPORATION LIMITED V HAMMANT AND ORS AND ORS HC AK CIV-2008-404-7712

Citation

openlaw-592e046c_74a0_4475_ac0e_2fb330c03286.pdf
Court

High Court

The application was dismissed because the evidence was inadequate to satisfy Rule 17.41: there was no evidence the fourth defendant sold property to defeat creditors and no evidence she was about to leave New Zealand, and such scant evidence did not justify an order that would substantially impede her freedom to deal with property.

New Zealand Case Law

IKON BUILDING CO-OPERATION LTD v DUMASIA [2021] NZHC 2624

BLUNDELL CONCRETE LIMITED v HODGINS [2017] NZHC 2359

Cox v Coughlan [2015] NZHC 1014

STRAND CORPORATION LIMITED V HAMMANT AND ORS AND ORS HC AK CIV-2008-404-7712