Sale in executionSuspensionGreat hardshipReasonable offerRule 348AWarrant of execution
Tags
ExecutionSale in executionSuspensionHardship
legislation
Statutes Cited
High Court Rules, 1971
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"Whether the applicant has demonstrated he will suffer great hardship if the property is sold in execution","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Property is family's only home; applicant survives on wife's earnings; applicant farms at Riverside Farm"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the applicant's proposal constitutes a reasonable offer to satisfy the judgment debt","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Joint venture agreement with Row-Croppers; projected earnings; no actual agreement attached"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The applicant sought suspension of sale in execution of his Marlborough property following a 2015 judgment for $111,365.96. He proposed paying through a joint venture arrangement with Row-Croppers (Private) Limited in tranches of $30,000 from November 2017 to 2020, claiming the property was his family's only home and he would suffer great hardship.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases