Martell v Martell

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2024-404-001051

[2024] NZHC 3302

UNDER Senior Courts Act 2016

IN THE MATTER

of a judgment of the Family Court at Great Grimsby, United Kingdom

BETWEEN

RACHAEL ANN MARTELL

Judgment Creditor/Applicant

AND

CAMPBELL DAVID MARTELL

Judgment Debtor/Respondent

Hearing: 7 November 2024

Appearances:

G W Easton for Judgment Creditor/Applicant No appearance for Respondent

Judgment:

7 November 2024

Reissued:

8 November 2024

JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

[Formal proof]

This judgment was delivered by me on 7 November 2024 at 3.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors: Wilson Harle, Auckland Copy to: Judgment Debtor/Respondent

MARTELL v MARTELL [2024] NZHC 3302 [7 November 2024]

[1] The applicant seeks an order that the memorial of judgment of the Family Court at Great Grimsby in the United Kingdom be registered as a judgment of this Court under s 172(3) of the Senior Courts Act 2016.

[2] On 22 February 2023, the applicant obtained a financial remedy order from the Family Court in Great Grimsby against the respondent. The order provided, among other things, for the respondent to pay a lump sum of £416,000 by 23 June 2023, and in the event of default, provided for interest at a rate of 4.5 per cent above the Bank of England’s base rate. The judgment sum, together with the interest ordered by the Family Court at Great Grimsby, amounts to $1,022,394.02 as converted at today’s date.

[3] The respondent has not complied with the judgment. He resides in New Zealand. The applicant seeks to register the memorial of judgment under the provisions of s 172(2) of the Senior Courts Act.

[4] The requirements of s 172(3) have been met. A summons was issued to the respondent and duly served. The respondent has failed to engage with the process, even though he acknowledged receipt by email of the date for the call of the summons on 16 October 2024. The matter was allocated a formal proof before the Court on 7 November 2024. Again the respondent failed to appear today.

[5] As noted previously by Johnstone J, the judgment is not subject to s 13 of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1934 so that s 172 is the appropriate section to apply in this case.

[6] Having regard to the application and the supporting affidavit evidence the Court is satisfied the applicant is entitled to the order sought.

Order

[7] There will be an order accordingly under s 172 of the Senior Courts Act allowing execution of the judgment of the Family Court at Great Grimsby in the sum

of $1,022,394.02 as a judgment of this Court. There are no terms or conditions attaching to such execution.

Costs

[8]Costs on a 2B basis together with disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.

Venning J

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the High Court of New Zealand involved Rachael Ann Martell, the judgment creditor, and Campbell David Martell, the judgment debtor. Rachael sought to have a financial remedy order from the Family Court at Great Grimsby, United Kingdom, registered as a judgment in New Zealand under section 172(3) of the Senior Courts Act 2016. The underlying dispute stemmed from a financial remedy order issued on 22 February 2023, which required Campbell to pay a lump sum of £416,000 by 23 June 2023, with interest at 4.5 per cent above the Bank of England's base rate in case of default. The total amount owed, including interest, converts to $1,022,394.02. Campbell, who resides in New Zealand, failed to comply with the judgment.

The court was required to determine whether the judgment creditor's application to register the UK judgment as a New Zealand judgment under section 172(3) of the Senior Courts Act 2016 was valid. The court had to consider whether the procedural requirements for registering foreign judgments were met, including the service of a summons on the judgment debtor, and whether the judgment was not subject to any limitations under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1934. Given that the respondent had not appeared or responded to the summons, the court needed to ascertain whether the judgment creditor was entitled to the requested order.

The court found that all procedural requirements for registering the foreign judgment were satisfied. The summons was duly served on Campbell, who had acknowledged receipt of the summons date but failed to appear or engage with the process. The court noted that the judgment was not subject to section 13 of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1934, making section 172 the appropriate provision to apply. Based on the application and supporting evidence, the court concluded that Rachael was entitled to have the UK judgment registered as a New Zealand judgment. Accordingly, the court granted the order allowing the execution of the judgment of the Family Court at Great Grimsby in the sum of $1,022,394.02 as a judgment of the New Zealand High Court. The order was made without any terms or conditions. The court also awarded costs on a 2B basis, together with disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

UNDER	Senior Courts Act 2016
IN THE MATTER	of a judgment of the Family Court at Great Grimsby, United Kingdom
BETWEEN	RACHAEL ANN MARTELL Judgment Creditor/Applicant
AND	CAMPBELL DAVID MARTELL Judgment Debtor/Respondent

Hearing:	7 November 2024
Appearances:	G W Easton for Judgment Creditor/Applicant No appearance for Respondent
Judgment:	7 November 2024
Reissued:	8 November 2024