Bank of New Zealand v Robinson

[2021] NZHC 270

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2020-409-626

[2021] NZHC 270

BETWEEN

BANK OF NEW ZEALAND

Plaintiff

AND

KERI YVONNE ROBINSON

Defendant

Hearing:	(Determined on the papers)
Counsel:	K M Paterson and C F Olds for the Plaintiff
Judgment:	24 February 2021

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE LESTER

This judgment was delivered by me on 24 February 2021 at 4.00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar 24 February 2021

BANK OF NEW ZEALAND v ROBINSON [2021] NZHC 270 [24 February 2021]

[1]    The plaintiff, Bank of New Zealand (BNZ), applies for an order for substituted service of its summary  judgment  proceedings  against  the  defendant,  Keri  Yvonne Robinson.

[2]    I am satisfied, having regard to the evidence of the processor server involved, Mr van Beek, that reasonable efforts have been made to locate the defendant, the BNZ not having a physical address for her. That an experienced investigator, after searching all available databases, has not obtained an address for the defendant satisfies me that it is necessary for there to be an order for substituted service.

[3]    Mr van Beek’s enquiries show that the defendant is in Christchurch and such has been confirmed by the defendant’s ex-husband, who travels to Christchurch to visit their children.

[4]    BNZ has two email addresses for the defendant and a cellphone number. However, attempts to contact the defendant through those means have been unsuccessful. Emails sent to the email addresses asking the defendant to get in touch to facilitate service have not returned an undeliverable message.

[5]    Accordingly, I am satisfied BNZ’s proceedings cannot be promptly served other than by way of substituted service.

[6]    I am further satisfied that the following directions represent methods of service likely to bring the documents to the attention of the defendant.

Orders

[7]I direct that personal service of the:

(a)statement of claim dated 16 December 2020;

(b)notice of proceeding and summary judgment sought by the plaintiff dated 18 December 2020;

(c)notice of  interlocutory  application  for  summary  judgment  dated  18 December 2020; and

(d)the affidavit of Russell John Robson in support of the interlocutory application for summary judgment, sworn 16 December 2020;

together referred to as “the Documents” is dispensed with.

[8]    I direct that service on the defendant will be deemed to be effected upon the completion of the following steps:

(a)the documents, together with a copy of this Order, are to be sent by email to both of the last known email addresses for the defendant, as set out in para 1(b)(i) of the application dated 19 February 2021;

(b)an advertisement is to be published in The Press newspaper in terms of the advertisement set out  in  Schedule  A  to  the  application  dated 19 February 2021; and

(c)a text message is to be sent to the cellphone number of the defendant as set out in Mr van Beek’s affidavit sworn 12 February 2021, advising the Court has made an order permitting BNZ’s proceedings to be served by email and that the defendant should check the email addresses which the BNZ has previously contacted the defendant on.

[9]    The Documents will be treated as served three working days after completion of the steps in the preceding paragraph.

[10]   The application for substituted service is adjourned with leave to the BNZ to request by memorandum a further order as to substituted service in the event that any further pleadings in this proceeding cannot be promptly served (in which event counsel’s memorandum should contain confirmation either that the defendant can still not be located or attaching evidence as to subsequent difficulties of service).

[11]   The costs of this application are fixed on a 2B basis and are, with disbursements, to be costs in the cause.

Associate Judge Lester

Solicitors:
Buddle Findlay, Christchurch