Ibanez Limited v Westpac New Zealand Limited

[2013] NZHC 482

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2011-404-5263 [2013] NZHC 482

BETWEEN  IBANEZ LIMITED First Plaintiff

ANDWENDY JUNE LOUISE THOMPSON Second Plaintiff

ANDSTEVEN DESMOND BARKER AND MATTHEW WARREN BARKER Third Plaintiffs

ANDWESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED First Defendant

ANDRAHOPARA FARMS LIMITED Second Defendant

Hearing:         8 March 2013

Appearances: Ms Thompson second plaintiff in person

Mr Shackleton for first defendant
Mr Cavanagh QC for second defendant

Judgment:      8 March 2013

ORAL JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE DOOGUE

Solicitors/Counsel:

Ibanez Limited , 909 Haruru Road, Wainui, Auckland

Ms J Thompson, 276 Rodney Road, Wellsford – [email protected]

Simpson Grierson, Private Bag 92518, Wellesley Street, Auckland –
[email protected]

Paul Cavanagh QC, Shortland Chambers – [email protected]/[email protected] Copy:

Mr M Barker – [email protected]

IBANEZ LIMITED & Ors V WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED & Ors HC AK CIV-2011-404-5263 [8

March 2013]

[1]      There  are  four  named  plaintiffs  in  this  proceeding.   All  of  them  except Matthew Warren Barker have agreed that the proceedings should not proceed further. There have been a number of delays, breaches in compliance with orders made by the Court and other matters that would justify the proceedings being at least stayed.

[2]      However in regard to Mr Barker the second defendant has taken the step at filing a strike out application that is not defended and there is no evidence put forward which would justify the Court declining that application which itself is based upon delays and failure to prosecute the proceedings.  For those reasons in my view the order that is sought by the applicant/second defendant is an appropriate one. But rather than restricting it to dismissing Mr Barker’s claim the order that ought to be made is one that the proceedings in their entirety ought to be struck out and I

order accordingly.

J.P. Doogue

Associate Judge