GLW Group Limited v Lepionka and Company Investments Limited

[2016] NZHC 3072

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2015-404-002168 [2016] NZHC 3072

BETWEEN

GLW GROUP LIMITED

First Plaintiff

GARTH BOWKETT PATERSON Second Plaintiff

AND

LEPIONKA AND COMPANY INVESTMENTS LIMITED First Defendant

LEPIONKA AND COMPANY LIMITED Second Defendant

STEFAN JOZEF JOHN LEPIONKA AND NIGEL WARRANT HUGHES AS TRUSTEES OF THE SJ LEPIONKA FAMILY TRUST

Third Defendants

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	D W Grove for the Plaintiffs M J Tingey for the Defendants
Judgment:	14 December 2016

JUDGMENT OF WOODHOUSE J

[Decision on first defendantʼs 12 December 2016 application]

This judgment was delivered by me on 15 December 2016 at 9.15 a.m. pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 1985.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………………

Solicitors:        Foy Halse, Auckland

Bell Gully, Wellington

Counsel:        D W Grove, Auckland

GLW GROUP LTD v LEPIONKA AND COMPANY INVESTMENTS LTD [2016] NZHC 3072 [14 December

2016]

[1]      The first defendant (LCIL) has applied for the following orders:

(a)      An  order  allowing  these  proceedings  to  be  continued  against  the second plaintiff (Mr Paterson), who is bankrupt, for the purpose of the present interlocutory application.

(b)An order restraining both plaintiffs from continuing an application made  by  Mr  Paterson  to  the Tenancy Tribunal,  under  application number 4057525, until after determination of an application already before this Court and for hearing on 10 February 2016.

[2]      The application for the Tenancy Tribunal is scheduled for hearing at the

Hastings District Court on 16 December 2016 at 3.20 pm.

[3]      The application was filed for urgent determination.   I received supporting documents for LCIL, a memorandum in response from Mr Grove who is acting for the first plaintiff (GLW) in this proceeding and for Mr Paterson in the Tenancy Tribunal proceeding, and a memorandum in reply for LCIL.

[4]      As advised to both counsel in the minute of 13 December I anticipated that I would determine this application on the papers.  There was no objection from either party. Given the urgency, I have determined this on the papers.

[5]      I am satisfied that the application should be dismissed and it is dismissed.

[6]      My reasons will follow as circumstances permit.

Woodhouse J