Gollan v Managh

[2015] NZHC 587

IN THE HIGH COURTOF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CIV-2011-419-1047 [2015] NZHC 587

BETWEEN

JAMES PATRICK GOLLAN

Applicant

AND

JOAN IVY MAUREEN MANAGH, KENNETH JAMES MANAGH AND JOHN CAMPION AS TRUSTEES OF THE LAST WILL OF IRENE IVY MAUDE LUDERS

Respondents

Hearing:	27 March 2015
Appearances:	Applicants in person D M O'Neill for Respondents
Judgment:	27 March 2015

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on application for interim injunction]

This judgment was delivered by me on 27 March 2015 at 2.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors:

Innes Dean Tararua Ltd, Palmerston North

Counsel:

D M O’Neill, Hamilton

Copy to: J Gollan

GOLLAN v MANAGH [2015] NZHC 587 [27 March 2015]

[1]      Mr and Mrs Gollan no longer wish to proceed with their application for stay and review of the judgment delivered by Associate Judge Doogue on 25 August

2014.1     Those applications are accordingly dismissed with costs to Mr and Mrs

Managh  on  a  category  2B  basis  together  with  disbursements  as  fixed  by  the

Registrar.

[2]      The only outstanding issue in this proceeding is an application by Mr and Mrs Gollan for an injunction preventing Mr and Mrs Managh from disposing of their chattels.

[3]      Mr and Mrs Managh say that all of those chattels are currently safely stored in a container sitting on the lawn of the property at 30 Brookfield Street, Hamilton. They want Mr and Mrs Gollan to remove these chattels as soon as possible so that they can take steps to sell the property.

[4]      Mr and Mrs Gollan contend that further chattels remain in the house and they want unrestricted access to the house in order to remove those items.  Mr and Mrs Managh are not prepared to accede to that request, but have indicated that they would be prepared to allow Mr and Mrs Gollan to have access to the  property provided a representative of Mr and Mrs Managh was present.  This would enable Mr and Mrs Gollan to point out items that they contend they own.

[5]      In the past the parties have been unable to reach agreement regarding the procedure by which chattels belonging to Mr and Mrs Gollan are to be identified and removed.   Mr Gollan advises me today, however, that he and his wife are not prepared to take any further steps to remove any chattels until such time as they have achieved justice through the courts.  Quite how that is to occur is not clear at this point.  It is clear, however, that the parties have now reached an impasse regarding the question of the removal of the chattels.

[6]      There is no need for the Court to grant the injunction that Mr and Mrs Gollan seek, because there is no suggestion or evidence that  Mr and Mrs  Managh are

1      Gollan v Managh & Ors and Managh v Gollan & Ors [2014] NZHC 2056.

currently planning to take any steps to dispose of the chattels.  The application for an injunction is accordingly dismissed.

[7]      Mr and Mrs Managh are entitled to costs on a category 2B basis on that application, together with disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.

Lang J