Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
High Court of New Zealand Decisions |
Last Updated: 10 March 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
CIV 2012-404-006723 [2014] NZHC 310
BETWEEN OWEN CECIL ERIC HARNISH Plaintiff
AND ROBERT IAN BRUCE Defendant
Hearing: 27 February 2014
Appearances: W Endean for the Plaintiff
A Gilchrist for the Defendant
Judgment: 27 February 2014
JUDGMENT (No. 2) OF GILBERT J
This judgment is delivered by me on 27 February 2014 at 10.30am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.
..................................................... Registrar / Deputy Registrar
HARNISH v BRUCE (No. 2) [2014] NZHC 310 [27 February 2014]
[1] In a judgment delivered yesterday I declined Mr Bruce’s
application for a temporary stay of enforcement of two
judgments obtained
against him by Mr Harnish.1 Mr Gilchrist made an oral application
this morning for relief pending appeal against my judgment to the Court of
Appeal. I declined
that application. These are my brief reasons for doing
so.
[2] The debt owed by Mr Bruce to Mr Harnish has been outstanding since September 2009. Mr Harnish obtained summary judgment for the outstanding principal in February 2013 and a separate judgment for interest and costs in July
2013. Numerous proposals for payment have not come to fruition because Mr
Bruce has been unable to raise the funds necessary to meet
these judgments which
together total $1,665,785 plus interest.
[3] On 6 December 2013 Mr Harnish’s solicitor notified Mr
Bruce’s counsel that Mr Harnish had run out of patience
and he had been
instructed to enforce the judgments in respect of charging orders had already
been obtained. Mr Harnish obtained
a sale order in January 2014. The Sheriff
of this Court has arranged to auction Mr Bruce’s principal asset, being
his 50
per cent shareholding in a company that owns a property at Whitford. The
auction is scheduled to take place at 10am today.
[4] The ANZ Bank is owed approximately $8,700,000 secured
against this property. This loan is in default and the bank
is in the process
of selling the property pursuant to its powers as first mortgagee. Tenders are
due to close on 10 April 2014.
[5] Mr Bruce sought a stay of enforcement of the judgments until 10
April 2014 to allow him additional time to attempt to raise
funds to pay Mr
Harnish. Mr Greer, an experienced banking and finance consultant, has been
trying to assist Mr Bruce to achieve
this since May 2013, so far without
success. Mr Greer could say no more than that he “hoped” to be
able to secure the
necessary funding by 10 April 2014.
[6] I declined to stay enforcement of the judgments, mainly because
there is a real risk that Mr Harnish will be prejudiced
by any stay. If the
mortgagee sale
1 Harnish v Bruce [2014] NZHC 302.
process is completed before he can enforce his judgments, he may receive
nothing or face a shortfall. I took the view that he should
not be required to
accept that risk and should be permitted to continue with the current
enforcement process which is near completion.
[7] I accept that Mr Bruce’s appeal rights against my judgment
may be rendered nugatory unless some relief is given.
I also accept that he
intends to appeal against the judgment and that his appeal is bona fide.
However, the problem is
that Mr Bruce delayed until the eve of the auction
to bring his application for stay of enforcement. He must accept the
consequences
of this delay. Mr Gilchrist accepts that any appeal is unlikely to
be heard and determined by the Court of Appeal prior to 10 April
2014 when
tenders close in the mortgagee sale process. There is therefore now no
prospect of preserving both parties’
positions pending an appeal. If I
grant relief and stop the auction from proceeding this morning, Mr Bruce will
effectively obtain
the stay of enforcement I declined yesterday. This would
expose Mr Harnish to the risk of loss if the mortgagee sale process is
completed
before he can enforce the judgments.
[8] In these circumstances, and balancing the interests of the parties as best I can, I decline to grant interim relief pending any appeal. The application is accordingly
dismissed.
M A Gilbert J
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2014/310.html