Long v ANZ National Bank Limited

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 31/2012 [2012] NZSC 51

BETWEEN REGINALD ROBERT LONG Applicant

ANDANZ NATIONAL BANK LIMITED Respondent

Court: Elias CJ, McGrath and William Young JJ Counsel: P A Craighead for Applicant
D D Watterson and O J Meech for Respondent

Judgment: 4 July 2012

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

BCosts are reserved, with the respondent to submit a memorandum within seven days as to the costs sought and the applicant to reply within a further seven days.

REASONS

[1] The applicant guaranteed the indebtedness of a related company to the respondent. This indebtedness was also secured by a mortgage over property. The property was sold by the respondent leaving a shortfall. In the High Court,1 the respondent obtained summary judgment against the applicant for this shortfall. His later challenge to this judgment was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.2 He now seeks leave to appeal. The point in issue is whether the respondent complied with its
duty under s 176(1) of the Property Law Act 2007 to take reasonable care to obtain

1 ANZ National Bank Ltd v Long HC Auckland CIV-2011-404-2741, 4 October 2011.
2 Long v ANZ National Bank Ltd [2012] NZCA 132.

LONG v ANZ NATIONAL BANK LIMITED SC 31/2012 [4 July 2012]

the best price reasonably obtainable as at the time of the mortgagee sale of the property.

[2] The proposed appeal does not raise any point of public or general importance. Instead the applicant seeks to revisit arguments which have been carefully and thoroughly investigated in both the High Court and Court of Appeal. We consider that the answers to those arguments given by both Courts are convincing and there is no appearance of a miscarriage of justice.

[3] Accordingly the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Webb Morice, Auckland for Applicant
Minter Ellison Rudd Watts, Auckland for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand was asked to decide whether the applicant, Reginald Robert Long, could appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal in relation to a dispute with ANZ National Bank Limited. The applicant had guaranteed a debt owed by a related company to the respondent, which was secured by a mortgage over a property. After the property was sold by the respondent, leaving a shortfall, the respondent obtained summary judgment against the applicant for the amount owed. The applicant’s challenge to this judgment was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the respondent complied with its duty under s 176(1) of the Property Law Act 2007 to take reasonable care to obtain the best price reasonably obtainable as at the time of the mortgagee sale of the property. The Supreme Court found that the proposed appeal did not raise any point of public or general importance, and that the arguments had been thoroughly investigated in both the High Court and Court of Appeal. The Court concluded that the answers to those arguments given by both Courts were convincing, and that there was no appearance of a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The Court also reserved costs, with the respondent to submit a memorandum within seven days as to the costs sought, and the applicant to reply within a further seven days.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established