Body Corporate 185960 v North Shore City Council HC Auckland Civ-2006-404-003535

[2008] NZHC 2649

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2006-404-003535

BETWEEN  BODY CORPORATE 185960

First Plaintiff

K J GAITELY AND OTHERS Second Plaintiffs

ANDNORTH SHORE CITY COUNCIL First Defendant

R J DREW

Second Defendant

B GAILER

Third Defendant

CELESTAR PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED First Third Party

G L NORRISH Second Third Party

S CAMPBELL Third Third Party

I DRIVER

Fourth Third Party

HIBISCUS ROOFING COMPANY LIMITED

Fifth Third Party

Hearing:         6-10, 13-15, 17 and 20-21 October 2008

Appearances: M C Josephson and G D R Shand for the Plaintiffs

D J Heaney and F L McGregor for the First Defendant
No Appearance of or for the Second Defendant
Third Defendant in Person
No Appearances of or for First, Second, Third and Fourth Third
Parties

C M Brick for the Fifth Third Party

BODY CORPORATE 185960 AND ORS V NORTH SHORE CITY COUNCIL AND ORS HC AK CIV-2006-

404-003535  28 October 2008

Judgment:      28 October 2008

JUDGMENT DUFFY J [On the Papers]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Duffy on 28 October 2008 at 12.45 pm, pursuant to

r 540(4) of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:

Solicitors:   Grimshaw and Co P O Box 6646 Auckland 1001 for the Plaintiffs Heaney and Co P O Box 105391 Auckland 1001 for the First Defendant B K Gailer (Third Defendant) 51 Awanohi Road R D 2 Albany 0792

Copy To:    Jones Fee P O Box 1801 Auckland 1001 for the Fifth Third Party

[1]      This action came before me for trial commencing on 6 October 2008.  I was advised on 15 October 2008 that as between the plaintiffs and the first the defendant, a settlement had been reached.  I was also advised that as part of that settlement, it may be the case that the first defendant would consent to entry of judgment against it in favour of the plaintiffs in the sum of $160,000, notwithstanding that this sum is less than the amount of the settlement.  Since then, I have been requested to enter judgment against the first defendant on the advised terms.   I have considered the matter and am satisfied that it is appropriate to enter judgment against the first defendant in the manner requested.

[2]      I order accordingly that judgment is to be entered against the first defendant in favour of the plaintiffs in the sum of $160,000.

Duffy J