Wine Country Credit Union v Wang HC Napier CIV 2010-441-213

[2010] NZHC 1141

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

CIV-2010-441-000213

BETWEEN  WINE COUNTRY CREDIT UNION Plaintiff

ANDMAY YANG WANG First Defendant

ANDMANCHURIAN NZ TRUST AND MAG TRUSTEES LIMITED

Second Defendants

ANDSUN MANAGEMENT LIMITED Third Defendants

Hearing:         1 July 2010

Appearances: Mr E Bate for plaintiff

No appearance for defendants

Judgment:      1 July 2010

ORAL JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE DOOGUE

Counsel:

Hansen & Bate Limited (E M Bate), Hastings –  [email protected]

Mr P Sargent, 12 O’Connell Street, Auckland

WINE COUNTRY CREDIT UNION  V  WANG AND ORS HC NAP CIV-2010-441-000213  1 July 2010

[1]      This is a summary judgment application.  It was adjourned to todays date by Associate Judge Sargisson because there were doubts whether the first defendant had been served.   Since that date the plaintiff has obtained an acknowledgement of service  by  a  solicitor  pursuant  to  r  6.18.    I pointed  out  to  Mr  Bate’s  that  the acknowledgement is signed by the solicitor as “solicitor for the defendant”.   But given the fact that conventional service has been proved on the other two defendants Mr Bate submitted that by a process of elimination the defendant referred to in the solicitor’s certificate must be the first defendant.  That seems to me to be a common- sense approach and I agree with it.  Therefore service on all defendants has now been proved to the satisfaction of the Court.   No steps have been taken by any of the defendants to oppose the application and none of the defendants appeared at the hearing before me today.   The plaintiff, as required by the rules, verified that the statement of claim is correct and has further deposed that, in its view, none of the defendants has a defence.  The plaintiff is therefore entitled to judgment subject to one minor matter that I will mention subsequently.

[2]      A memorandum as to quantum has been filed which, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, may be adopted as properly setting out the calculation of what the defendants owed to the plaintiff.  In terms of that memorandum there will be judgment against each of the defendants in the sum of $311,885.22.  Additionally interest is ordered against each of those defendants in the sum of $10,317.75.  The plaintiff will have costs on a solicitor/client basis of $6,171.88 and disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.

[3]      Judgment is entered against MAG Trustees Limited in its capacity as trustee of the Manchurian NZ Trust.

[4]      The judgment is to lie in Court until the Registrar has cited the original of the endorsement on the proceedings of the solicitor acting for the first defendant, Mr

Sargent.

J.P. Doogue

Associate Judge