Vudutha v Auckland Finance Limited
[2025] NZHC 3001
•10 October 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CIV-2025-404-2552
[2025] NZHC 3001
BETWEEN SRINIVASU VUDUTHA
Plaintiff/Appellant
AND
AUCKLAND FINANCE LIMITED
Defendant/Respondent
Hearing: On the papers Counsel:
The plaintiff/appellant is self-represented N W Woods for the respondent
Date:
10 October 2025
JUDGMENT OF BLANCHARD J
This judgment was delivered by me on 10 October 2025 at 10.00 am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules
Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Solicitors:
Rice Craig Barristers and Solicitors, Papakura
VUDUTHA v AUCKLAND FINANCE LTD [2025] NZHC 3001 [10 October 2025]
[1] Mr Vudutha applies for an interim injunction restraining Auckland Finance Ltd from selling, disposing of, or dealing with a property in Pokeno owned by Mr Vudutha and his wife, Udayasree Vudutha. Auckland Finance is seeking to sell the property by way of mortgagee sale and opposes the application.
Loan and mortgage
[2] On 16 August 2019, Auckland Finance and Mr Vudutha’s company, New Zealand City Transport Ltd (NZCT), entered into a loan agreement. The loan was guaranteed by Mr and Mrs Vudutha and, on 15 August 2019, they signed an agreement to mortgage the property to support the guarantee.
[3] On 29 September 2021, Auckland Finance, NZCT and Mr and Mrs Vudutha executed a deed of variation of loan agreement. This deed recorded that the balance owed under the loan at that date was $160,549.98. The deed included a payment schedule under which 62 payments were to be made, with the last payment due on 24 November 2026.
Default and mortgagee sale
[4] NZCT failed to make the payment due in January 2024. It also failed to make the payments due in February to July 2024.
[5] On 16 August 2024, NZCT was placed in liquidation by an order of the Court, on an application by the New Zealand Transport Agency.
[6] On 23 September 2024, Auckland Finance’s solicitors served a notice under s 119 of the Property Law Act 2007 on Mr and Mrs Vudutha. They failed to remedy the default by the deadline of 21 October 2024.
[7] On 20 November 2024, Auckland Finance and Mr and Mrs Vudutha entered into a further payment arrangement in relation to the loan. They agreed to make an initial payment of $9,458.25 and then monthly payments of $3,000. The agreement would have seen the loan repaid by January 2026. But only the first payment was made.
[8] On 20 August 2025, Auckland Finance engaged Bayleys Real Estate Ltd as agent to sell the property by mortgagee sale.
Interim injunction legal principles
[9] There are three stages to the consideration of an application for an interim injunction:1
(a)The applicant must establish that there is a serious question to be tried or, put another way, that the claim is not frivolous or vexatious.
(b)Next, the balance of convenience must be considered, which requires consideration of the impact on the parties of the granting of, and the refusal to grant, an order.
(c)Finally, an assessment of the overall justice of the position is required as a check.
Decision
[10] When Mr Vudutha’s application came before Gardiner J in the Duty Judge list, she recorded in her minute dated 16 September 2025, “I cannot discern the basis for the claim against Auckland Finance”.2 I am in the same position.
[11] Mr Vudutha asserts that Auckland Finance has engaged in conduct that is unconscionable, misleading and deceptive in breach of the Fair Trading Act 1986, and in breach of a duty to lend responsibly. The only evidence Mr Vudutha has filed is a short affidavit by him. The affidavit has no exhibits. It asserts that, in 2019, Auckland Finance loaned him money despite having access to bank statements of his that showed he had “no income capacity”. This evidence is insufficient to establish any arguable breach or wrong by Auckland Finance.
1 NZ Tax Refunds Ltd v Brooks Homes Ltd [2013] NZCA 90, (2013) 13 TCLR 531 at [12].
2 Vudutha v Auckland Finance Ltd HC Auckland CIV-2025-404-2552, 16 September 2025 (Minute of Gardiner J) at [2].
[12] It follows that Mr Vudutha has failed to establish that there is any serious question to be tried. That being the case, it is unnecessary for me to consider where the balance of convenience lies. As there is no serious question to be tried, the overall justice requires that the application be declined.
Result
[13]The application for an interim injunction is declined.
[14] I order Mr Vudutha to pay Auckland Finance costs. This is a category 2 proceeding. Time band B should apply to each step taken by Auckland Finance.
Blanchard J