STRAND CORPORATION LIMITED V HAMMANT AND ORS AND ORS HC AK CIV-2008-404-7712 [2009] NZHC 995 (11 August 2009)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
AUCKLAND REGISTRY
                                                             CIV-2008-404-7712


               BETWEEN                    STRAND CORPORATION LIMITED
                                          Plaintiff

    
          AND                        TROY ROBERT HAMMANT AND
                                          TANY A LOUISE HAMMANT AND
                                          REBECCA JOY HALL AND ANDREW
                                          JOHN HALL
      
                                   First Defendants

               AND                        PETER GENSCH
                    
                     Second Defendant

               AND                        LAURENCE BOEY KUM WENG
                        
                 Third Defendant

               AND                        LI LI MA
                                          Fourth
Defendant

Hearing:       (on papers)

Appearances: Mr A M Swan for Plaintiff

Judgment:      11 August 2009 at 4 p.m.


       
       JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE DOOGUE
                   [for Leave to issue Charging Order]


               This judgment was
delivered by me on
               11.08.09 at 4 p.m, pursuant to
               Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.


           
     Registrar/Deputy Registrar

               Date...............


Counsel:

Mr A W Swan, P O Box 5444, Auckland




STRAND CORPORATION
LIMITED V HAMMANT AND ORS AND ORS HC AK CIV-2008-404-7712 11
August 2009

[1]    The plaintiff has filed an application seeking
leave to issue a charging order
before a judgment pursuant to Rule 17.41.


[2]    The application will be dismissed. The reason
is that the evidence provided
is inadequate to bring the plaintiff's application within Rule 17.41. There is some
evidence that the
fourth defendant has sold a property at Pakuranga. There is no
evidence that that has been done with intent to defeat her creditors.
Nor is there any
evidence that the fourth defendant is `about to leave New Zealand'. The Court is
apparently invited to infer that
because the fourth defendant has connections with
Taiwan, and because she had not satisfied a judgment entered against her, that
therefore she will leave New Zealand.


[3]    This evidence is quite insufficient to make orders that represent a substantial
impediment
on the freedom of people to deal with their property as they see fit. The
application is declined.



_____________
J.P. Doogue
Associate
Judge