Watson v Williams

[2012] NZHC 3199

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2012-404-5994 [2012] NZHC 3199

UNDER  the Judicature Act 1908

IN THE MATTER OF     recovery of land from an unlawful occupier

- Part 13, Schedule 2 of the Judicature Act

1908

BETWEEN  ROHAN THEODORE WALTER WATSON, KELLY MAREE WATSON AND NAPIER INDEPENDENT TRUSTEES LIMITED AS TRUSTEES OF THE STAR TRUST

Plaintiffs

ANDGLYNIS RUTH WILLIAMS AND SHAINE FREDRICK WILLIAMS Defendants

Hearing:         23 November 2012

Counsel:         BW Morley for plaintiffs

Appearance:    SF Williams, second-named defendant in person

Judgment:      29 November 2012

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE FAIRE [on application for summary judgment]

Solicitors:           Hesketh Henry, Private Bag 92 093, Auckland

And To:             GR & SF Williams, 40 Mayall Avenue, Beachhaven

WATSON V WILLIAMS HC AK CIV-2012-404-5994 [29 November 2012]

Table of Contents

The application ............................................................................................................ 1

Grounds in opposition ................................................................................................. 1

The Court’s approach to a summary judgment application  ....................................... 2

Background ................................................................................................................. 4

The position analysed – jurisdiction  .......................................................................... 6

The agreement  ............................................................................................................ 9

The mortgagee’s power of sale ................................................................................. 10

Damages for wrongful possession  ........................................................................... 12

The application

[1]      The plaintiffs apply for summary judgment against the defendants.   They seek the following orders:

(a)      An  order  that  they are  entitled  to  possession of  the  property,  the subject of this application;

(b)An order that the defendants, together with any family, friends or associates,  vacate  the  property within  one  week  from  the  date  of judgment; and

(c)      Damages for the defendants’ continual unlawful occupation of the property in the sum of $700 per week from 14 September 2012 to the date the defendants vacate the property.

Grounds in opposition

[2]      This judgment should be read with my judgment on the plaintiffs’ application to set aside the defendants’ appearance objecting to the jurisdiction of this Court to hear the summary judgment application.  In that judgment I set a time for the filing of a notice of opposition and affidavits in opposition.

[3]      A notice of opposition, together with a further affidavit in opposition has now been  filed.   The  grounds  advanced  in  the  notice of opposition  are specified as follows:

(a)      That the defendants have a lease agreement and tenancy agreement that confers upon them the status of lawful occupiers of the property at 40 Mayall Avenue, Beachhaven; and

(b)That, in any case, the High Court does not have jurisdiction to make an order for possession consequent upon a successful summary judgment  application  in  the  case  of  a  residential  tenancy  as  this

exclusive  jurisdiction  lies  with  the  Tenancy  Tribunal  under  the

Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The Court’s approach to a summary judgment application

[4]      Part  12  of  the  High  Court  Rules  deals  with  applications  for  summary judgment.    Rule  12.16  provides  that  rr 12.1  to  12.15  apply  with  all  necessary modifications to counterclaims.

[5]      Rule 12.2 of the High Court Rules requires that a plaintiff satisfy the Court that a defendant has no defence to a cause of action in the statement of claim or to a particular part of any such cause of action.  The obligations imposed…