New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Writ of sale

Legal area

Court

2 Aug 2013

THOMPSON v THOMPSON [2013] NZHC 1946

Citation

[2013] NZHC 1946
Court

High Court

The Court has jurisdiction under r 20.10(2)(c) to grant interim relief even where the subject order was made by consent and not itself appealed when the consent orders are intertwined with the issues on appeal; balancing the parties' positions and absence of significant prejudice to the respondent (who continued to be protected by interest and a charging order) justified a narrowly confined stay of enforcement expiring 48 hours after issuance of the High Court's judgment on the appeal.
28 May 2012

REID AND HALE V CARTERTON AUTO COURT LIMITED T/A MCKENZIE MOTORS HC MAS CIV-2010-435-120

Citation

openlaw-cbcd5c8c_3faa_41ff_b968_82bc7b697f59.pdf
Court

High Court

Claims against the District Court registrar and the High Court Sheriff were struck out because the District Court Rules lawfully permitted entry and sealing of default judgment for a liquidated amount without the registrar or sheriff requiring independent proof of indebtedness and the sheriff's use of the creditor's solicitor was standard practice and did not establish a conflict; however the claim against the first respondent was not struck out because unresolved factual issues exist about the voluntary return, subsequent possession and disposition of the vehicle that could engage the Credit…
26 Nov 2010

TAWANUI DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED V DM HARNETT AND JC MALCOLM AND ANOR HC PMN CIV-2008-454-949

Citation

openlaw-93e817d2_c091_402e_94f7_fe442d815eef.pdf
Court

High Court

Because the plaintiff provided contemporaneous tax invoices and affidavit evidence that the claimed costs of $17,049.63 related solely to charging orders and writ of sale, and because the defendants did not dispute that evidence despite extensions, the court found the amount reasonable and awarded indemnity costs of $17,049.63 together with Registrar‑approved disbursements and directed the Registrar to pay the approximately $7,000 held as a part‑payment plus interest.
15 Sept 2010

JAMES ROBERT REID AND GRAEME FREDERICK HALE AS TRUSTEE OF THE FREDERICK FRANK TRUST V CARTERTON AUTO COURT LIMITED TRADING AS MCKENZIE MOTORS AND ORS HC MAS CIV 2010-435-120

Citation

openlaw-14809530_7a04_43ab_a727_ab5e8a7a2759.pdf
Court

High Court

The court removed James Reid as an applicant for lack of standing because he had no legal interest in the trust or the subject matter; refused Reid's application to represent the trust because he is not a lawyer and the case involves complex legal issues unsuitable for lay advocacy; held the Masterton High Court is the proper registry and refused transfer to Palmerston North; and adjourned the first respondent's application for security for costs to allow Mr Hale time to obtain legal advice and consider the application, with directions to correct the waiver of filing fee to reflect trust asse…
11 Feb 2010

ZONDAG V ZONDAG AND ANOR HC HAM CIV 2003-419-000328

Citation

openlaw-62497208_e51e_4c7d_a68b_32be0b452d11.pdf
Court

High Court

Charging order discharged; court apportioned the $16,059 paid into court by directing $3,100 be paid to plaintiff, the balance to defendant, ordered plaintiff contribute $4,500 towards boundary adjustment costs, refund $920 sheriff's fees to plaintiff, apportion interest accrued on the pay-in pro rata between the parties, and made no costs order because both parties were self-represented.
1 May 2009

GILL CONSTRUCTION CO LTD V MORGAN AND MORGAN HC WN CIV-2009-406-100

Citation

openlaw-21a959de_03c1_41d4_9093_55e25b78f2b9.pdf
Court

High Court

A registered charging order constitutes a charge and thereby a registered interest in land under the Land Transfer Act; because the applicant's charging order was registered before the respondents' caveat(s) it has priority and the applicant therefore has standing under s143 to apply for removal of the caveat; the application to remove the caveat is granted.
20 Feb 2008

PARKER CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (NZ) LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) V HORIZON INVESTMENTS LIMITED HC WN CIV 2007-485-1963

Citation

openlaw-99e22f31_084b_4043_8028_3b8a2c26cc93.pdf
Court

High Court

Because the plaintiff held a sealed judgment for the adjudicator's determination, the funds in the independent solicitor's trust account were plainly the judgment debtor's and no reason was advanced to withhold enforcement, the Court struck out the liquidation proceeding and ordered a charging order absolute and the issue of a Writ of Sale to enforce the judgment.
31 Oct 2007

ERWOOD V RAYLEE PATRICIA HARLEY HC WN CIV 2000 485 27

Citation

openlaw-f9ff789a_b03e_403a_9177_8c6b1c29638f.pdf
Court

High Court

The matter was relatively simple and the respondent was enforcing existing costs orders; applicant's arguments lacked merit and did not justify an uplift beyond category 2B, therefore costs awarded on 2B basis ($11,200) plus disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.
12 Sept 2007

ERWOOD V RAYLEE PATRICIA HARLEY HC WN CIV 2000 485 27

Citation

openlaw-409c7bfa_5af6_47aa_bd0b_11d7c64540d2.pdf
Court

High Court

The application to set aside the writs was refused because the sealed consent order of 25 November 2003 unambiguously preserved the respondent's entitlement to pursue the amounts in Schedule D; extrinsic memoranda and affidavits could not vary the clear terms of the sealed order; the writs were properly issued and executed and no stay was warranted.
10 Aug 2007

ERWOOD V HARLEY HC WN CIV 2000-485-27

Citation

openlaw-aef74bb1_b6b1_46f0_a1b6_503dbf605bfc.pdf
Court

High Court

Application for security for costs is declined because the matter is an interlocutory application relating back to the substantive proceeding and Rule 60 does not apply to individual interlocutory steps; the court will not use its inherent jurisdiction to achieve what Rule 60 does not permit as that is contrary to the rule's philosophy.