Vudutha v Auckland Finance Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2025-404-2552

[2025] NZHC 3382

BETWEEN
SRINIVASU VUDUTHA

Plaintiff/Appellant

AND

AUCKLAND FINANCE LIMITED

Defendant/Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

The plaintiff/appellant is self-represented N W Woods for the respondent

Date:

7 November 2025

JUDGMENT OF BLANCHARD J

This judgment was delivered by me on 7 November 2025 at 11.30 am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Rice Craig Barristers and Solicitors, Papakura

VUDUTHA v AUCKLAND FINANCE LTD [2025] NZHC 3382 [7 November 2025]

[1] On 10 October 2025, I issued a judgment declining an application by Mr Vudutha for an interim injunction restraining Auckland Finance Ltd from selling by mortgagee sale a property owned by him and his wife.1 I declined Mr Vudutha’s application on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to establish any arguable breach or wrong by Auckland Finance.2

[2] Mr Vudutha has applied for leave to appeal my decision under s 56 of the Senior Courts Act 2016. He has also applied for a stay of enforcement pending appeal.

[3] Since my decision, Mr Vudutha has filed a further affidavit dated 20 October 2025. In his application for leave to appeal, he describes the affidavit as providing “comprehensive evidence”. The basis for his appeal is that there is now, as a result of the new affidavit, sufficient evidence for an interim injunction to be granted.

[4] The difficulty with this is that the new evidence would not be admissible in an appeal. It is not fresh. It could, with reasonable diligence, have been produced earlier.3

[5] Accordingly, I decline the application for leave to appeal. It follows that the application for stay must also be dismissed.

[6] I order Mr Vudutha to pay Auckland Finance costs in relation to the applications. Time band B should apply to each step taken by Auckland Finance.

Blanchard J

1 Vudutha v Auckland Finance Ltd [2025] NZHC 3001.
2 At [11].
3 Erceg v Balenia Ltd [2008] NZCA 535 at [15].

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Vudutha v Auckland Finance Limited, the plaintiff, Srinivasu Vudutha, sought an interim injunction to prevent the defendant, Auckland Finance Limited, from selling a property owned by him and his wife through a mortgagee sale. The matter was heard in the High Court of New Zealand at Auckland. Initially, the court declined the plaintiff’s application for an interim injunction based on insufficient evidence of any breach or wrongdoing by Auckland Finance Limited. Following this decision, Vudutha applied for leave to appeal and for a stay of enforcement pending appeal. In support of his appeal, Vudutha submitted a new affidavit, which he claimed provided comprehensive evidence warranting an interim injunction.

The court was tasked with deciding whether the new affidavit constituted fresh evidence that could justify an appeal and a stay of enforcement. The judge highlighted that the new evidence could have been produced earlier with reasonable diligence, thus making it inadmissible in an appeal. Consequently, the court declined the application for leave to appeal and dismissed the application for a stay of enforcement. The judge further ordered Vudutha to pay costs to Auckland Finance Limited, specifying that Time band B should apply to each step taken by the defendant.

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:	The plaintiff/appellant is self-represented N W Woods for the respondent
Date:	7 November 2025