White v Lynch

[2015] NZHC 1020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2014-404-2845 [2015] NZHC 1020

BETWEEN

AMANDA ADELE WHITE

First Plaintiff

ANNE LEOLINE EMILY FREEMAN Second Plaintiff

AND

CHRISTOPHER MAURICE LYNCH First Defendant

STUART GORDON SPENCE Second Defendant

CIV-2014-404-2282

IN THE MATTER             of the Insolvency Act 2006

IN THE MATTER             of the bankruptcy of Amanda Adele White

BETWEEN  CHRISTOPHER MAURICE LYNCH Judgment Creditor

ANDAMANDA ADELE WHITE Judgment Debtor

[Continued over]

Hearing:

24 November 2014, 19 February and 20 April 2015

Counsel:

Appearances:

P Wright for defendants in CIV-2014-404-2485 and judgment creditor in CIV-2014-404-2282 and CIV-2014-404-2284

AA White and ALE Freeman, plaintiffs/judgment debtors

Judgment:

14 May 2015

JUDGMENT OF FAIRE J

White v Lynch [2015] NZHC 1020 [14 May 2015]

IN THE MATTER

CIV-2014-404-2284

of the Insolvency Act 2006

IN THE MATTER

of the bankruptcy of Anne Leoline Emily

Freeman

BETWEEN

CHRISTOPHER MAURICE LYNCH

Judgment Creditor

AND

ANNE LEOLINE EMILY FREEMAN Judgment Debtor

Contents

The applications .....................................................................................................[1] The parties ..............................................................................................................[2] The bankruptcy proceedings ..................................................................................[3] The strike-out application ......................................................................................[4] Applications to be heard together ..........................................................................[8] Adjournment of the hearing ................................................................................. [11] Background ..........................................................................................................[13] The strike-out application ....................................................................................[34] The statement of claim .........................................................................................[36] The notice of opposition.......................................................................................[39] The Court’s approach to a strike out application .................................................[40]

The causes of action .............................................................................................[49] The first cause of action  [52] The second cause of action  [64] The seventh cause of action  [66] The ninth cause of action  [68] The tenth cause of action  [69] Memorandum to cross-examine Mr Spence  [70]

Conclusion on the strike-out application  [74] The application in respect of the bankruptcy notices ...........................................[75] Orders .................................................................................................................... 86]

The applications

[1]      There are two applications which require determination, namely:

(a)      The application by the defendants in CIV-2014-404-2485 which seeks orders striking out the plaintiffs’ statement of claim or, in the alternative, ordering security for costs; and

(b)The application by the plaintiffs in CIV-2014-404-2485, who are the judgment debtors in proceeding CIV 2014-404-2282 and CIV-2014-

404-2284 respectively, for orders that bankruptcy proceedings issued against them be stayed.

The parties

[2]      I shall refer to Ms White and Ms Freeman as the plaintiffs and Mr Lynch and Mr Spence as the defendants in this judgment in respect of the applications that are under consideration.

The bankruptcy proceedings

[3]      The bankruptcy proceedings are in the form of bankruptcy notices which have been issued against both plaintiffs.   The founding judgment on  which the bankruptcy notices are based is a judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on

2 July 2014 which ordered the plaintiffs pay the defendants’ costs in the sum of

$3,433.1   The Court of Appeal judgment dealt with three interlocutory issues which arose in an appeal against a decision of Priestley J in which judgment had been entered  against  the  plaintiffs  in  their  capacity  as  third  parties  in  favour  of  the

defendants.2  The substantive appeal has not yet been determined.

1      White v Spence [2014] NZCA 298.

2      Spence v Lynch [2013] NZHC 1478.

The strike-out application

[4]      The strike-out application contends that the plaintiffs’ proceeding CIV 2014-