White v Lynch

[2014] NZHC 2901

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