ANZ Bank New Zealand Limited v Bushline Trustees Limited

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 64/2019
[2019] NZSC 115

BETWEEN	ANZ BANK NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Applicant
AND	BUSHLINE TRUSTEES LIMITED AND STEPHEN DANIEL COOMEY AS TRUSTEES OF BUSHLINE TRUST ONE, AND BUSHLINE TRUSTEES LIMITED AND SHARON LOUISE COOMEY AS TRUSTEES OF BUSHLINE TRUST TWO First Respondents ROBERT LEWIS ENGLAND Second Respondent

Court:	Winkelmann CJ, O’Regan and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	S M Hunter, M C Sumpter and D T Street for Applicant M D Branch for First Respondents A C Challis and D P Turnbull for Second Respondent
Judgment:	15 October 2019

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal is granted (Bushline Trustees Ltd v ANZ Bank New Zealand Ltd [2019] NZCA 245).

BThe approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal from the judgment of the High Court (Bushline Trustees Ltd v ANZ Bank New Zealand Ltd [2017] NZHC 2520, [2018] NZCCLR 19).

____________________________________________________________________

Solicitors:
Chapman Tripp, Auckland for Applicant
Harkness Henry, Hamilton for First Respondent
McElroys, Auckland for Second Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

ANZ Bank New Zealand Limited sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal, which had allowed an appeal from a High Court judgment. The dispute centred on the interpretation and application of certain legal provisions concerning the enforcement of security interests in a trust. The case involved a complex web of financial transactions, trust structures, and legal interpretations.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Court of Appeal was correct in allowing the appeal from the High Court judgment. Specifically, the court had to determine the validity and priority of security interests held by the bank and the trustees over certain assets. The court had to examine the nature of the security interests, the timing of their creation, and their registration under the Personal Property Securities Register.

The court found that the Court of Appeal had correctly allowed the appeal from the High Court judgment. The reasoning of the Court of Appeal was sound, as they had correctly identified and resolved the legal issues regarding the interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions. The Supreme Court confirmed that the appeal should be allowed and that the decisions of both the Court of Appeal and the High Court were in error.

The final orders of the court were that leave to appeal was granted. The approved question for the appeal was whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal from the judgment of the High Court. The Supreme Court's decision affirms the importance of correctly interpreting statutory provisions concerning security interests and the registration of these interests in the Personal Property Securities Register.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established