Anich v Anich

[2016] NZHC 723

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2015-404-2935 [2016] NZHC 723

IN THE MATTER

of Part 18 of the High Court Rules,

section 52 of the Trustee Act 1956

BETWEEN

PETER MICHAEL ANICH AND VENESSA FRANCES ANICH AS ATTORNEYS IN RELATION TO PROPERTY FOR DARINKA ANICH Plaintiffs

AND

DARINKA ANICH Defendant

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	SR Morris for plaintiffs
Judgment:	19 April 2016

JUDGMENT OF FAIRE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 19 April 2016 at 3 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors:           TGT Legal Ltd, Auckland

Anich v Anich [2016] NZHC 723 [19 April 2016]

[1]      The background to this proceeding is set out in the judgment of Associate Judge Doogue dated 11 February 2016.  That must also be read in conjunction with his Honour’s minute of 11 March 2016.

[2]      The Associate Judge reserved for consideration by a Judge of this Court the question of whether orders in terms of the prayers for relief contained in prayers (a) and (b) of the statement of claim should be made.  He quite rightly considered that he did not possess jurisdiction to deal with those matters.

[3]      The matter came before me in a Duty Judge list.   But for one matter, and having regard to the evidence review by Associate Judge Doogue and which I have also carefully considered, the prayers for relief contained in the statement of claim are, in fact, justified.   There is now, as a result of the order for directions as to service, no person who can oppose the making of those orders.

[4]      The one concern I had related to a caveat that had been lodged against the property which is the subject of this proceeding.   My concern, however, has been fully addressed because counsel advises me that as a result of settlement discussions the caveator has withdrawn the caveat.  Counsel has made available to me an historic search copy of the composite computer register which discloses the withdrawal of the caveat having been entered at 12:18 pm on 14 April 2016. The result is that there is no person who can oppose the making of the orders sought in the prayers for relief in the statement of claim.

[5]      I  am  satisfied  that  judgment  in  accordance  with  those  prayers  for  relief should be entered. Accordingly, I enter judgment as sought in paragraphs (a) and (b)

of the plaintiffs’ statement of claim.

JA Faire J