Carr v Humphries HC Dunedin CIV 2007-412-000510

[2010] NZHC 2349

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

CIV 2007-412-000510

AND BETWEEN            EWAN ROBERT CARR First Plaintiff

ANDBROOKSIDE FARM TRUST LTD Second Plaintiff

ANDRODNEY JOHN HUMPHRIES First Defendant

ANDBIG SKY DAIRY FARMS LTD (IN RECEIVERSHIP)

Second Defendant

ANDCASCADE CAPITAL LIMITED Third Defendant

ANDMAIN FARM LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP)

Fourth Defendant

ANDCONSULTANT MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP)

Fifth Defendant

ANDAWATAIERI HOLDINGS LIMITED Sixth Defendant

ANDJARCEL INVESTMENTS LIMITED Seventh Defendant

Hearing:         (On papers) Judgment:  2 September 2010

JUDGMENT (NO. 2) OF FOGARTY J

CARR  AND ANOR V HUMPHRIES  AND ORS HC DUN CIV 2007-412-000510  2 September 2010

[1]      By judgment of 3 August last this Court granted an application to discharge a Charging Order Nisi over sums being held by Rhodes and Co and/or QBE Insurance (International)  Limited  charged  with  the  payments  of  $47,048  in  favour  of the  receivers  of  the  Big  Sky  Group  of  companies  and  $55,978  in  favour  of Mr R J Humphries, Jarcel Investments Limited and Awataieri Holdings Limited.

[2]       A second charging order has come to light.  This is in respect of payments of the same sums in respect of the same parties.  The only difference is it is against any or all monies held by the ANZ Bank.

[3]      The first charging order was discharged because the debts had been paid.  It follows the second charging order cannot stand.  It is discharged.  The draft order for discharge of Charging Order Nisi can be amended to include the order made by this Court on 3 August, and now, the order made by this Court on 2 September, with appropriate changes.

[4]      On the question of costs counsel for the plaintiff has applied to the Court to resolve issues of computation. His memorandum was filed on 24 August.   The receivers (second to fifth defendants inclusive) have until Friday, 10 September, to file any submissions in reply.  As a submission on costs was necessary, there will be no further entitlement to the plaintiffs for costs in respect of the application for an order discharging the Charging Order Nisi over any ANZ monies.  The issue of costs is therefore confined to the attendances by counsel for the plaintiff down to the judgment of 3 August.

Solicitors:

Rhodes & Co, Christchurch, for Plaintiff

Webb Farry, Dunedin, for Defendant