Morrison v First Mortgage Custodians Ltd - [2025] NZHC 2844

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2025-485-691

[2025] NZHC 2844

BETWEEN
TAYLOR FORD MORRISON

Applicant

AND

FIRST MORTGAGE CUSTODIANS LTD AND FIRST MORTGAGE MANAGERS LTD

Respondents

Teleconference: 25 September 2025

Appearances:

Applicant in Person

T J Conder for Respondents

Judgment:

29 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF McQUEEN J

[1] At about 3.30 pm on Thursday 25 September 2025, Taylor Morrison’s application for urgent injunctive relief was referred to me as Duty Judge.

[2] Mr Morrison sought an order restraining the respondents (together, First Mortgage) from enforcing vacant possession at a self-contained flat in Wellington (the Property). Mr Morrison filed a short affidavit in support of the application. First Mortgage was said to be intending to enforce vacant possession of the premises at 4 pm on Thursday 25 September 2025. This would leave Mr Morrison homeless as he has not yet secured any alternative accommodation. Mr Morrison had lived at the Property for two years. Mr Morrison said that First Mortgage had already given him one extension of the possession deadline and the further extension he was seeking, to say 9 October 2025, was narrow and temporary. He referred to a consent judgment entered on 19 August 2025 relating to Philip Moore & Co (PMCL), of which Mr Morrison only became a director on 14 August 2025. Mr Morrison said the
MORRISON v FIRST MORTGAGE CUSTODIANS LTD AND FIRST MORTGAGE MANAGERS LTD [2025] NZHC 2844 [29 September 2025]

judgment did not deal with his residential occupation of the Property, rather the obligations of PMCL to vacate the Property.

[3] The Registry urgently arranged a teleconference with Mr Morrison. Mr Morrison explained that PMCL had been trading at the Property but there was also a self-contained flat there, in which he had been living. I asked Mr Morrison what he expected to happen at 4.00 pm. He told me he was at the Property, and he expected First Mortgage’s agent to come and pick up the keys and ask him to leave. Mr Morrison said he has no family or friends to stay with in Wellington and no money to pay for short-term accommodation.

[4] I explained to Mr Morrison that on the material then available to me, I considered I did not have a proper basis for making the interim injunction he was seeking. I also explained that the usual practice of the Court would be to approach such an application on a Pickwick basis, giving notice to First Mortgage to allow its attendance at a judicial teleconference even though the application has been made on a without notice basis.

[5] Mr Morrison helpfully explained that he had been in contact with First Mortgage’s lawyer (Mr Conder) earlier in the day, who had indicated that he could be available for a teleconference if required. The Registry then arranged a further teleconference a short time later, at which Mr Conder attended for First Mortgage. Mr Conder also filed some papers, including…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Morrison v First Mortgage Custodians Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NZHC 2844
Decision Date: 29 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Taylor Ford Morrison applied for an interim injunction to prevent First Mortgage Custodians Ltd and First Mortgage Managers Ltd from enforcing an order for vacant possession of a flat in Wellington. Mr Morrison argued that he had not secured alternative accommodation and would be left homeless if the order was enforced immediately. The court heard the application from Mr Morrison, who appeared in person, and then from Mr Conder, who appeared for First Mortgage. Mr Morrison sought an extension of the possession deadline to 9 October 2025 to allow him to find alternative accommodation. First Mortgage opposed the application, arguing that Mr Morrison had not raised his personal residential occupation in the earlier proceedings and that the application was an abuse of process.

The court found that there was no serious question to be tried. The court held that Mr Morrison had had ample time to find alternative accommodation and that the balance of convenience and overall interests of justice favoured First Mortgage. The court suggested that Mr Morrison should discuss the matter further with First Mortgage to see if they would consider a short extension of time for vacant possession. The court declined Mr Morrison's application for an interim injunction and granted leave to file a memorandum on costs.

Orders