27 Aug 2021
Because the plaintiff proved service and neither defendant entered an appearance or filed a defence, the court was obliged to enter summary judgment by default awarding possession against the first defendant and a monetary judgment against the second defendant for the sums and contractual costs claimed.
23 Apr 2021
Court awarded the principal debt and compounded interest from the date of the final outstanding invoice to judgment at the agreed 1.5% per month, applied the Interest on Money Claims Act for post-judgment interest to the date in the memorandum, and reduced the claimed costs to exclude GST in accordance with authority, awarding $84,129.38 in costs.
16 Apr 2021
The Court refused to include post-judgment interest in the sealed New Zealand judgment because the Californian judgment made no award or mention of interest, no basis or submissions were advanced to support an award of interest, and the sealed judgment must reflect only the orders previously made; costs and disbursements may be recorded in the sealed judgment where specific sums are provided.
25 Mar 2021
Clause 34.3 applied because the change in share ownership and appointment of a director on 22 December 2017 effected a change in effective management or control such that the lease was deemed assigned to Ms Yin; as assignee she was liable under the lease; Tempest proved rent arrears and labour for repairs but failed to prove several other claimed items, therefore judgment was entered for the proven sum of $111,439.75 plus statutory interest.
10 Mar 2021
The Court directed precise quantifications: $23,480 plus Judicature Act interest yielding $42,264 for the 2000 share disposition, $124,924.92 for the increase in AAC/CIP shares, and $8,088.45 for the current account, but held the total payable under s 44C(2)(a) is statutorily capped and ordered payment of $192,850 as the compensation under s 44C(2)(a); no post-judgment interest or further costs were awarded and leave is required for any further directions application.
23 Jun 2020
The court granted a stay of execution against the first and second defendants pending the appeal because the balance of convenience favored a stay: appellants demonstrated bona fides and a real risk that forced sale of the Knight Road property in the current market would render the appeal nugatory, the plaintiff provided no evidence of ability to repay if appeal succeeds, and post‑judgment interest sufficiently protects the plaintiff's interests.
27 Sept 2019
The Court ordered the sealed judgment be corrected to remove an item purporting to be post-judgment interest (because such interest arises by operation of law and should not be included in the sealed order), upheld the award of costs including second counsel as properly allowed, and refused the stay of execution pending appeal because no security was offered, the applicant's financial evidence was unreliable or inadequate, and the appeal had little prospect of overturning adverse factual findings.
10 Sept 2018
The Court granted summary judgment against the former lessees (Jackson, Letica, Fox and Fox) for outstanding rent $662,729.86, insurance premiums $52,151.05 and interest to 3 February 2016 $241,751.85 and awarded contractual default interest at 20% p.a. from 4 February 2016 to date, holding that (a) the deeds of covenant imposed continuing liability subject to limitation, (b) Property Law Act s233 did not bar the Trust because the lease had been cancelled before sale so no reversion expectant existed for a purchaser to step into, (c) mitigation and Fair Trading Act defences did not raise an a…
13 Sept 2016
The application to recall was dismissed because the respondent effectively sought variation of the District Court's order on interest without having filed a cross-appeal; the appellate court will not vary the lower court's judgment on post-judgment interest in those circumstances, so recall was unnecessary and inappropriate (the court did not need to decide definitively whether clause 55 excluded merger).
30 May 2016
The Court granted partial summary judgment: the Bank proved there was no arguable defence to its claim on the First Housing Loan such that judgment was entered for the Bank against the trustee (limited to trust assets) and guarantors for principal and accrued interest; the claims affected by alleged July 2013 refinancing wrongs (Property Plus loan and Second Ballantyne loan) raised reasonably arguable defences (misrepresentation, mistake, non est factum, FTA) and therefore are not appropriate for summary judgment and must proceed to trial; the Bank is entitled to an order for vacant possessio…