4 Jun 2021
Interim liquidation cannot be ordered ex parte where (a) statutory preconditions are unmet (no s282 consent), (b) the remedy is drastic and alternatives or respondent arguments may defeat an ex parte order; accordingly the application for an interim liquidator must be brought on notice and the proceeding transferred to the correct registry (Hamilton).
18 Mar 2016
The court exercised its power under r19.5 to permit the proposed grant of administration proceedings to be commenced by originating application and held that, because r27.6(3) brings Part 5 into play for solemn form applications, the proper registry is determined by r5.1/r5.25 (Auckland in the circumstances), so r27.10 is limited in effect to uncontested without‑notice Part 27 applications and does not mandate filing in Wellington for the solemn form/originating application permitted here.
6 May 2014
Applicants, as final beneficiaries (and substitutional beneficiary in the case of the daughter), have a beneficial proprietary interest in land purchased by the trustees and therefore have a caveatable interest; the originating application, although arguably filed in the wrong registry, was not defective in practical terms given respondents' failure to object or seek transfer, and the caveat should not lapse.
27 Apr 2012
The debtor's notice of opposition was struck out because it failed to disclose proper grounds of opposition and was not supported by the affidavit required by High Court Rule 24.18; absent a supported application to set aside the judgment or bankruptcy notice, the creditor established the matters necessary for an adjudication order and the order was made.
9 Sept 2011
Rule 5.1(2) did not apply to this banco statutory interpretation proceeding because no material part of a cause of action arose in Auckland; although technically filed in the wrong registry the court exercised its discretion under r5.1(4)/(5) and retained the proceeding in the Auckland Registry to give effect to the High Court Rules objective (r1.2) and to avoid unnecessary delay; directions were given and costs awarded to the plaintiff on a 2B basis; certificate for second counsel refused.