White v Lynch
[2014] NZHC 2901
•20 November 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
CIV 2014-404-2485 [2014] NZHC 2901
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
BETWEEN CHRISTOPHER MAURICE LYNCH Judgment Creditor
AND AMANDA ADELE WHITE Judgment Debtor
CIV 2014-404-2284
BETWEEN CHRISTOPHER MAURICE LYNCH Judgment Creditor
AND ANNE LEOLINE EMILY FREEMAN Judgment Debtor
Hearing: (on the papers) Counsel:
Ms A A White and Ms A L E Freeman, in person, Plaintiffs
J Cooper for Messrs Lynch and Spence
Judgment:
20 November 2014
JUDGMENT (NO. 2) OF HEATH J
This judgment was delivered by me on 20 November 2014 at 4pm
Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar
WHITE v LYNCH [2014] NZHC 2901 [20 November 2014]
[1] On 13 November 2014, I gave judgment on two applications made by Ms White and Ms Freeman. Those applications, seeking to join counsel for Mr Lynch and Mr Spence as a party to the proceeding and debarring him from acting further in this and related proceedings, were dismissed.1
[2] Counsel for Mr Lynch and Mr Spence has filed a memorandum dated
19 November 2014. In it, Ms Cooper contends that I should recall my original judgment to correct an error in para [12]. The relevant part of that paragraph states that: “… After the entry of judgment, Ms White discovered that banking records that she had been told did not exist, were available”. Ms Cooper submits that that statement is at odds with the evidence, though not material to my decision.
[3] Ms White and Ms Freeman oppose recall and correction. I take them to consider that the comment was justifiable.
[4] A substantive application to strike a fresh proceeding brought by Ms White and Ms Freeman, and their application to set aside bankruptcy notices issued at the behest of Mr Lynch and Mr Spence are set down for hearing on
24 November 2014.2 I do not believe any benefit would accrue from my
reviewing the evidence again to decide whether to correct the sentence in issue. In my view, if my interpretation of the evidence were incorrect, the Judge who hears the applications on 24 November 2014 is free to take a different view. Nothing I have said binds that Judge to any factual finding I may have made for the purpose of the two interlocutory applications with
which I dealt.
1 White v Lynch [2014] NZHC 2819.
2 For background, see paras [6]–[18] inclusive of White v Lynch [2014] NZHC 2819.
[5] On that basis, the application for recall is dismissed with no order as
to costs.
P R Heath J
Delivered at 4.00pm on 20 November 2014
Solicitors:
Lucas & Mabin, Auckland
Counsel:P J Wright, Auckland
Copy to:
Ms White and Ms Freeman
0