Yingling v Gifford

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GISBORNE REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TŪRANGANUI-A-KIWA ROHE

CIV-2015-416-26

[2021] NZHC 820

BETWEEN
RANDY YINGLING

Plaintiff

AND

KEN GIFFORD

First Defendant

AND

DEAN WITTERS

Second Defendant

Hearing: On the Papers

Counsel:

G J Thwaite for Plaintiff G R Webb for Defendants

Judgment:

16 April 2021

JUDGMENT OF CLARK J

[1]In my judgment dated 26 February 2021 I made the following orders:1

(a)The judgment of the Superior Court of California, (County of Kings), dated 26 April 2012 is enforceable in New Zealand.

(b)The plaintiff is entitled to costs which I award on a 2B basis, together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the registrar.

[2] The Californian Court entered judgment against the defendants and awarded Mr Yingling US$382,895 (comprising compensatory damages of US$232,500, exemplary damages of US$150,000 and costs of US$395).

1 Yingling v Gifford [2021] NZHC 314 at [98].

YINGLING v GIFFORD [2021] NZHC 820 [16 April 2021]

[3] On 15 April 2021 a memorandum of counsel for the plaintiff was put before me. Mr Thwaite’s memorandum is directed to the case officer and submits for review a “draft judgment” for approval with a final judgment to be submitted “when it is in order”. The draft judgment is for a total sum of NZ$1,033,173.07. That sum comprises:

(a) damages NZ$528,203.89;

(b)interest NZ$434,140.18;

(c)costs NZ$55,379; and

(d)disbursements NZ$15,450.

[4] A judgment sealed in these terms would not reflect the orders made in my judgment of 26 February 2021.

[5] While in his statement of claim seeking a declaration that the Californian judgment is enforceable Mr Yingling sought interest, no interest was awarded. Mr Thwaite advanced no written or oral submissions in relation to interest and there was no basis for an award. The plaintiff sought enforcement of the judgment given in his favour on 26 April 2012 by the Californian Court. For reasons given in my judgment I concluded the plaintiff was entitled to a declaration of enforceability. The Californian judgment made no award (nor mention) of interest.

[6] As to interest post-judgment, in Taylor v Asteron Life Ltd the High Court ordered that a judgment should be re-sealed without an award of interest for the post- judgment period.2 The plaintiff was required to return or destroy all copies of the pre- existing order because that order should not have included post-judgment interest: “[i]nterest on the amount awarded in a Court’s judgment arises by operation of law, and is not ordered by the Court”.3

2 Taylor v Asteron Life Ltd [2019] NZHC 2459.
3 At [4].

[7] Similarly, in this case, the sealed judgment should reflect only the orders that I made and may also include the specific sums of costs and disbursements calculated by Mr Thwaite (namely costs of $55,379 and disbursements of $15,450).

[8] I note for completion that the first statement of claim was filed in June 2015. Therefore, the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016 is inapplicable.

Karen Clark J

Solicitors:
G J Thwaite, Auckland for Plaintiff Nolans, Gisborne for First Defendant

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Yingling v Gifford is an action brought by Randy Yingling against Ken Gifford and Dean Witters in the High Court of New Zealand. Yingling, the plaintiff, sought enforcement of a Californian court judgment that awarded him US$382,895 in damages, interest, and costs. The defendants, Gifford and Witters, challenged the enforceability of this judgment in New Zealand. The primary issue before the court was whether the Californian judgment could be enforced in New Zealand and, if so, what amounts, if any, should be included in the judgment.

The court examined the nature of the Californian judgment and the orders made by the New Zealand court in its earlier judgment. In the earlier judgment, the court had ruled that the Californian judgment was enforceable in New Zealand and had awarded costs to the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff had not sought interest in the earlier proceedings, and no interest was awarded. The plaintiff's counsel, in the draft judgment, included interest and additional costs and disbursements which had not been the subject of the court’s earlier orders. The court held that the judgment should only reflect the orders made by the court and not include interest or additional sums not previously awarded.

In the court's reasoning, it was clear that the interest and additional sums included in the draft judgment were not part of the earlier orders and thus should not be included in the final judgment. The court referred to previous cases where similar issues had arisen and upheld that interest post-judgment should not be included unless specifically ordered by the court. The court further noted that the interest on money claims act was not applicable to this case as the claim was filed before its commencement.

The final orders of the court were that the judgment should reflect only the amounts and orders previously determined by the court, which included the enforceable nature of the Californian judgment and the costs awarded to the plaintiff. The court did not include the additional interest, costs, and disbursements proposed in the draft judgment.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Hearing:	On the Papers
Counsel:	G J Thwaite for Plaintiff G R Webb for Defendants
Judgment:	16 April 2021