Section 165 — District Court Act 2016: Warrant to arrest may be issued if judgment debtor cannot be served or fails to appear at hearing
Text of the provision Official document
165 Warrant to arrest may be issued if judgment debtor cannot be served or fails to appear at hearing (1) If a copy of the application cannot be served on the judgment debtor under section 164(5) , or if the judgment debtor fails to appear at the hearing of the application (or the resumption of the hearing, in the case of an adjourned hearing), a Judge or Registrar may issue a warrant to arrest the judgment debtor and bring the judgment debtor before the court as soon as possible. (2) A warrant under subsection (1) ceases to have effect if the judgment debtor pays, or causes to be paid, the amount due under the judgment debt. (3) If a judgment debtor is arrested under a warrant issued under subsection (1), the following provisions apply: (a) the judgment debtor must be brought before a Judge or, if a Judge is not available, the Registrar: (b) if the judgment debtor is brought before the Registrar, the Registrar must appoint a time and place for the judgment debtor to appear before a Judge for the purpose of commencing or continuing the hearing: (c) the judgment debtor is bailable as of right: (d) section 168 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 and Parts 1 to 3 of the Bail Act 2000 apply, with any necessary modifications, as if the hearing of the application referred to in subsection (1) were the hearing of a charge: (e) if the judgment debtor cannot practicably be brought immediately before a Judge or Registrar, then any Police employee or any bailiff may grant bail to the judgment debtor, and Parts 1 to 3 of the Bail Act 2000 apply, with any necessary modifications, as if the bail were granted by a Police employee under section 21(1) of that Act. Compare: 1947 No 16 s 84OB
Official source: legislation.govt.nz
Search case law on this topic
See judgments from New Zealand courts and tribunals with a plain-English summary and legal holding.
Explore case law →