Application for summary judgment — forgery — dishonestly using a document — joint tortfeasor — hearsay evidence — Crimes Act 1961, ss 66(1) & 228(b) — Evidence Act 2006, ss 17, 18, 20, 22 & 139 — District Court Rules 2014, r 12.2 — Krukziener v Hanover Finance Ltd [2008] NZCA 187 — Clout v New Zealand Police [2013] NZHC 1364 — Amaltal Corp Limited v Maruha Corp [2007] 1 NZLR 608 (CA). The plaintiff ticketing company applied for summary judgment against the three defendants. The first two defendants had been convicted of dishonestly using a document. The defendants had forged invoices and received money from the plaintiff company, of which the second defendant had been an employee. For a court to grant summary judgment it has to be satisfied that there is no defence to the claim. The defendants claimed that the plaintiff had not obtained a certificate pursuant to s 139 of the Evidence Act ("the Act") and that their actions did not amount to deceit. Counsel for the plaintiff relied on s 18 of the Act which permits the admission of hearsay evidence on certain grounds. The Judge considered the criteria was met for the evidence to be admitted, and concluded that the actions of the defendants did amount to deceit. The Judge entered summary judgment against the defendants. Judgment Date: 7 May 2021.