Herd v Haines

The applicants in Herd v Haines sought to register a part of a New Zealand judgment in the Federal Court of Australia. The application was pursuant to the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010, which allows for the registration of judgments from New Zealand in Australian courts. The respondents argued against the registration, claiming that the applicants were estopped from seeking to register the omitted judgment debt due to the principle of Anshun estoppel and res judicata, and also argued that the application contravened public policy.

The legal issues in the case revolved around the power of the Federal Court to permit the registration of a further amount of a judgment that had already been partially registered. The respondents contended that the court lacked the power to order the registration of a further amount, and that the principle of Anshun estoppel and res judicata, as well as public policy, prevented the registration. The applicants argued that the court had the power to permit the registration of the remaining amount of the judgment, and that the principle of Anshun estoppel and res judicata, as well as public policy, did not prevent the registration.

The court found that the power to permit the registration of a further amount of a judgment already registered was not precluded by the principle of Anshun estoppel or res judicata. The court also found that the application did not contravene public policy. The court concluded that the applicants were not estopped from seeking to register the omitted judgment debt, and that the court had the power to permit the registration of the remaining amount of the judgment. Consequently, the court ordered the registration of the remaining amount of the judgment.

In summary, the Federal Court found that the applicants had the power to register the remaining amount of the New Zealand judgment in Australia, despite it having already been partially registered. The court rejected the respondents' arguments that the principle of Anshun estoppel and res judicata, as well as public policy, prevented the registration. The court ordered the registration of the remaining amount of the judgment, in accordance with the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010.