ANZ National Bank Limited v Zhou HC Auckland CIV-2011-404-2792

[2011] NZHC 1189

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2011-404-2792

BETWEEN  ANZ NATIONAL BANK LIMITED Plaintiff

ANDZHUO MING ZHOU AND MISTY WAI HONG ZHOU

Defendants

Hearing:         5 October 2011

Appearances: Ms Lee for Plaintiff

Second named defendant in person

Judgment:      5 October 2011

ORAL JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE DOOGUE

Solicitors:

Shieff Angland, P O Box 2180, Auckland – [email protected]

ANZ NATIONAL BANK LIMITED V ZHOU HC AK CIV-2011-404-2792 5 October 2011

[1]      The second named defendant is no known as Ms Leong.  The second named defendant has appeared before me today and addressed me.  The gist of her remarks, as best I could understand them, was that she had put a proposal to the bank or wished to put a proposal to the bank for them to accept in preference to my entering judgment.  I have attempted to explain to her that I do not have power to order the bank to accept a negotiated amount in the proceedings.   Ms Lee told me that the proposal put to the Court today is in any event the same as one which the bank has already rejected.  Ms Leong told me that her financial circumstances at the present are imposing considerable hardship on her.  I think she also wished to convey to me that if there is a judgment it will bankrupt her.

[2]      The proceedings  are undefended.   They were  called  in  my Court  on  11

August  2011.    On that  occasion  I gave  Ms  Leong  what  I described  as  a  “last opportunity” to come to terms with the bank or obtain legal advice so that she could defend the proceedings if she wished to.  I told her that it was unlikely that if she didn’t take any such steps that the Court would adjourn matters further.

[3]      Given the history of this matter I consider that the bank is entitled to proceed today and I make the orders sought in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5  – 9 of the memorandum which Ms Lee has filed on behalf of the plaintiff with the result that there  will  be  judgment  in  a  total  sum  including  costs  and  disbursements  of

$473,495.68.