29 Jun 2023
The Court concluded that all amounts secured by the mortgage had been paid in full and that the mortgagee, Andrew Housing Ltd, could not be found after removal from the Companies Register; because enforcement remedies are time-barred and the statutory condition in s 109 PLA is satisfied, the Court declared the mortgage paid in full and ordered its discharge pursuant to s 111 PLA.
3 Jun 2022
Leave to appeal was dismissed because the question raised was essentially factual and discretionary, the Courts below rightly concluded s 266 applies even where collateral proceedings exist provided the power is not used oppressively, there was no basis to read down s 266 under s 27 NZBORA, and the exercise of discretion to order examination was correct given the applicant's non-cooperation.
11 Feb 2022
Although the plaintiff met the r 5.45(1) threshold by showing it lacked independent resources and was dependent on shareholder funding, the Court exercised its discretion under r 5.45(2) and declined to order security because the plaintiff's rent recovery claim had substantial merit, part of the impecuniosity resulted from the defendant's failure to pay rent, delay was neutral, and ordering security would not be just in all the circumstances.
3 Dec 2021
In the absence of opposition and with the plaintiff's consent, the court ordered disclosure of the specified amended pleadings to the applicant under the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017.
5 Aug 2021
The amended statement of defence did not comply with the May Judgment because the schedules failed to specify which pleaded defects each document/recommendation related to and which plaintiffs were put on notice for each defect; therefore the Council must replead particulars per unit owner identifying the specific defects relied on, the specific documents/reports and paragraph/page references that put that owner on notice, and must specify for contributory negligence whether knowledge is actual or imputed, identify agents and the facts giving rise to agent knowledge; failure to mitigate parti…
6 Jul 2021
The Court has jurisdiction under s 266 to order the respondent (a sole director/shareholder) to attend for examination and produce company books concerning matters relating to the business, accounts and affairs of the company even though proceedings against him are extant; the liquidators demonstrated the examination and production are reasonably necessary to fulfil their statutory duties given the respondent's non-cooperation; the examination is not oppressive and any risk to limitation defences can be mitigated by an undertaking limiting use of the examination record as an acknowledgment un…
18 Sept 2020
Leave to discontinue against Canam was declined because discontinuance would cause significant injustice to remaining defendants who would lose the ability to pursue claims against Canam due to the expired 10-year limitation in s 393 Building Act 2004; therefore discontinuance without consent of all defendants was not permitted under r 15.20(4).
12 Aug 2020
The Court held that Limitation Act 1950 s 4(5) is not displaced in all respects by the CPRA and accrual for an assets forfeiture cause occurs when the specific property was acquired or derived from significant criminal activity; claims based on pre-1 January 2011 benefit fraud were time-barred but tainting from concealed drug offending discovered later was not time-barred; the Karaka property was tainted by mortgage repayments and other payments funded by criminal activity and the respondent had effective control of the property, but the Court granted relief from assets forfeiture in respect…
12 May 2020
The Court found the creditor established the s13 jurisdictional facts: a certain debt of at least $1,000 arising from the District Court costs order, the debtor committed an act of bankruptcy by failing to comply with the Bankruptcy Notice, and the debt is payable; Limitation Act did not bar bankruptcy proceedings; costs liability was joint and several so creditor could pursue the debtor; the debtor failed to discharge the onus to show it would be just and equitable to refuse adjudication or that he could pay; accordingly under s36 the Court adjudicated the debtor bankrupt and awarded costs.
11 Nov 2019
Summary judgment was set aside because the defendant established an arguable defence: it was reasonably arguable he was resident in New Zealand (not Korea) when proceedings commenced and that steps taken in his name in Korea were unauthorised so he did not submit to Korean jurisdiction; given the court’s duty under the Insolvency Act to be satisfied the debt exists 'in truth and reality', the bankruptcy adjudication could not proceed and the bankruptcy application was dismissed; costs for the summary judgment were awarded to the creditor and other interlocutory directions made.