Isso Holdings Limited v Denize Trustee Company Limited

[2018] NZHC 1161

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-Ā-TARA ROHE

CIV-2018-485-259

[2018] NZHC 1161

BETWEEN

ISSO HOLDINGS LIMITED

Plaintiff

AND

DENIZE TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED

First Defendant

JONATHAN PETER TAPLEN DENIZE

Second Defendant

Hearing:

22 May 2018

Appearances:

D G Dewar for plaintiff

No appearance for first defendant Second defendant in person

Judgment:

22 May 2018

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE JOHNSTON

[1]    This summary judgment application came on for hearing before me today. The proceeding was originally commenced on 22 April 2018 and there is evidence before the Court of service of the originating documentation, together with a notice issued pursuant to s 119 of the Property Law Act requiring the defendants to quit the property in question.

[2]    Neither of the defendants have taken formal steps to oppose the plaintiff’s application for summary judgment or the Property Law Act Notice.

[3]As Mr Dewar submits, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment.

ISSO HOLDINGS LIMITED v DENIZE TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED [2018] NZHC 1161 [22 May 2018]

[4]    However,  when  the  matter  was   called   today   the   second   defendant, Mr Jonathan Denize, was in Court. He had come from Auckland for the purpose. He told me that he does not deny the plaintiff’s entitlement to judgment including an order for possession of the property. He says he does not disagree with Mr Dewar’s calculation of the amount due to the plaintiff. But he says that he is doing everything that he can to raise sufficient funds to meet the judgment, and is understandably anxious to avoid the entry of a judgment for such a large amount of money against the first defendant or himself.

[5]    After discussing the matter with Mr Dewar and Mr Denize, I concluded that the most appropriate course was to grant the plaintiff summary judgment, but direct that the judgment lie in Court for a short time in order to give Mr Denize an opportunity to discharge the obligation.

[6]    Accordingly, and by consent, I now enter judgment for the plaintiff against the first and second defendants in the amount of $1,609,113.34 which is the amount due and owing as at today’s date, together with default interest pursuant to the contract at the rate of 14.75 per cent from today’s date so that interest will continue to accrue at the daily rate of $632.43 down to the date of payment, and costs on a solicitor and client basis (as also provided for in the contract) of $10,925 and disbursements of

$2,081.75.

[7]I also make an order for possession of the property as sought by the plaintiff.

[8]    As already said, that judgment is to lie in Court and not be sealed or otherwise enforced until after 12 June 2018.

Associate Judge Johnston

Solicitors:

Thomas Dewar Sziranyi Letts, Lower Hutt for plaintiff