New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Discharge of charging order

Legal area

Court

9 Jul 2021

IKON BUILDING CO-OPERATION LTD v DUMASIA [2021] NZHC 1719

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1719
Court

High Court

A registered charging order under r17.51 remains on title until discharged by one of the methods in the rule; the Court will not grant a pre-judgment charging order absent sufficient evidence of a real risk of disposal or diminution of the property. The plaintiff failed to establish such a risk on the material before the Court, and the application for a pre-judgment charging order is dismissed. The existing charged remains registered until discharged by the mechanisms in r17.51, and the Court will not exercise power to make an order to keep an order in force beyond the statutory framework abs…
17 Aug 2018

MIKE PERO MORTGAGES LIMITED v MIKE PERO, MPZ ONE LTD & ORS [2018] NZHC 2136

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2136
Court

High Court

Because the fourth defendant had been paid in full the sums secured by the 22 December 2017 charging order and there was no sealed judgment supporting any further claims, the charging order no longer served any lawful purpose; the plaintiff's refusal to consent to discharge was unreasonable and an abuse of process and the charging order must be discharged.
8 Jun 2017

WILTON v LOGAN [2017] NZHC 1237

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1237
Court

High Court

Because the settlement resulted in vacating the certificate of judgment and discharging the charging orders, the applicant was the successful party and entitled to a costs award limited to the specified tasks (2.4 days at $2,230/day), producing an award of $5,352.00.
2 Sept 2010

CARR AND ANOR V HUMPHRIES AND ORS HC DUN CIV 2007-412-000510

Citation

openlaw-ccffc4f2_3197_44e9_8efd_2a8f1a26771d.pdf
Court

High Court

Because the debts secured by the charging orders had been paid, the second charging order over monies held by ANZ Bank could not stand and was discharged; costs in relation to that application are limited to attendances up to the 3 August judgment with no further entitlement for costs in respect of the ANZ charging order application.
24 May 2010

S R LEE AND Y H CHOI V WASAN INTERNATIONAL CO LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) AND ORS HC AK CIV-2009-404-001857

Citation

openlaw-107e341a_b371_4845_b50f_1709072df56b.pdf
Court

High Court

The charging order was discharged because the judgment debtors did not have a beneficial interest in the trust funds (the funds were held on a Quistclose resulting trust for a third party and to meet specific costs), and a charging order cannot confer a greater interest than the judgment debtor possessed; further, the plaintiffs, being strangers to the original undertaking, could not invoke the Court's inherent jurisdiction to enforce that undertaking for their benefit.
20 Jul 2009

RD1 LIMITED V DRYLAND AND DRYLAND TRADING AS JAG FARMS HC HAM CIV 2009-419-000168

Citation

openlaw-bfb02402_b092_4026_9f61_8e75703b1589.pdf
Court

High Court

By consent the Court set aside the default judgment against Andrew Dryland, made a charging order over 25 Belmont Avenue (Certificate of Title SA10C/727), discharged the charging order over 22 Yeats Crescent (Certificate of Title SA8D/402) with cooperation to secure removal from title if needed, reserved leave to apply for relief from the charging order over 25 Belmont, transferred the substantive claim back to the District Court for determination and awarded costs to RD1 Limited on a 2B basis plus enforcement costs of $2,367.50 for the period from mid‑2008.

New Zealand Case Law

IKON BUILDING CO-OPERATION LTD v DUMASIA [2021] NZHC 1719

MIKE PERO MORTGAGES LIMITED v MIKE PERO, MPZ ONE LTD & ORS [2018] NZHC 2136

WILTON v LOGAN [2017] NZHC 1237

CARR AND ANOR V HUMPHRIES AND ORS HC DUN CIV 2007-412-000510

S R LEE AND Y H CHOI V WASAN INTERNATIONAL CO LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) AND ORS HC AK CIV-2009-404-001857

RD1 LIMITED V DRYLAND AND DRYLAND TRADING AS JAG FARMS HC HAM CIV 2009-419-000168