Burns v Talakai HC Auckland CIV-2010-404-007198 [2011] NZHC 1462 (9 March 2011)

Last Updated: 12 November 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

_{CIV-2010-404-007198}

BETWEEN GRANT EDWARD BURNS & ANOR Plaintiff

AND KANAVALE FALAKIKO TALAKAI First Defendant

AND TALAKAI DEVELOPMENT LIMITED Second Defendant

Hearing: 9 March 2011

Counsel: A J Hayes for the Plaintiff

No appearance for the Defendants

Judgment: 9 March 2011

_{(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF WOOLFORD J}

Solicitors:

_{Cooke Morris Quinn, PO Box 84203, Westgate, Waitakere 0657}

BURNS & ANOR V TALAKAI HC AK CIV-2010-404-007198 9 March 2011

[1] In a minute dated 28 February 2011 Priestley J adjourned these proceedings to enable the plaintiff liquidator to file an affidavit confirming the substance of the claim as pleaded in paras 6-8 of the statement of claim with relevant documents relating to the shareholder’s account and acknowledgement of debt annexed.

[2] Priestley J further directed that the plaintiffs are to serve a copy of his minute at the last known address of the defendants in case they wished to take any further action.

[3] The plaintiff Grant Edward Burns has now filed an affidavit to formally prove the claim dated 2 March 2011. He confirms the contents of the statement of claim are true and correct to the best of his knowledge. He also attaches a copy of the deed of acknowledgement of debt and confirms that the defendants defaulted upon the terms of the deed, in that they did not make the payments as required by it. He sets out what payments have been made by the defendants and what sums remain outstanding.

[4] In addition, an affidavit has been sworn by a legal assistant employed by the plaintiff’s solicitors confirming that the minute of Priestley J was served on the defendants in accordance with his direction.

[5] The defendants have again failed to take any steps in these proceedings and the plaintiffs are accordingly entitled to judgment by default.

[6] Because the defendants have not filed a statement of defence in Court and have taken no steps in the proceedings a judgment is given for the plaintiff against both the first and second defendants in the sum of $228,227.43, with costs of

$7,144.00, disbursements of $1378.08 and interest of $6880.12.

.....................................

Woolford J