CHILD V BLACKLEY HC WHA CIV-2013-488-140

CHILD V BLACKLEY HC WHA CIV-2013-488-140

The court refused the mandatory interim injunction because the applicants delayed from December 2012 until March 2013, and damages were likely to be an adequate remedy; instead the court made interlocutory preservation orders requiring the defendants to hold and manage surviving animals in accordance with good stock management and set procedures for sale proceeds and interim protection of sheep and a timetable for further proceedings.

Citation
openlaw-2d98bc3c_96b3_46f2_bedc_51c5732c5e58.pdf
Parties
Plaintiffs: Leslie Bryan Child and Avriljean Child; First Defendant: David Charles Blackley; Second Defendant: Parua Bay Farms Limited; Third Defendant: Allan Roy Wild
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
14 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Interim Injunction and Freezing Order Application / First Mention / Interim Application (duty Judge)
Outcome
Mandatory interim injunction refused; interlocutory preservation orders granted for animals and sheep; directions and timetable for amended pleadings and hearing allocated.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunction, Freezing Order, Possession of Chattels (livestock), Leases, Relationship Property, Interim Preservation Orders
Civil Equity Property Family Law Interim Injunction Freezing Order Possession of Chattels (livestock) Leases +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leslie Bryan Child and Avriljean Child

Plaintiffs

David Charles Blackley

First Defendant

Parua Bay Farms Limited

Second Defendant

Allan Roy Wild

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Interim Injunction and Freezing Order Application / First Mention / Interim Application (duty Judge)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a mandatory interim injunction should be granted to return 67 cows and 66 calves to the leased farm
  2. 2 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy such that a mandatory injunction is inappropriate
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs' delay in seeking relief disentitles them to the mandatory relief sought

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused the mandatory interim injunction because the applicants delayed from December 2012 until March 2013, and damages were likely to be an adequate remedy; instead the court made interlocutory preservation orders requiring the defendants to hold and manage surviving animals in accordance with good stock management and set procedures for sale proceeds and interim protection of sheep and a timetable for further proceedings.

Court Disposition

Mandatory interim injunction refused; interlocutory preservation orders granted for animals and sheep; directions and timetable for amended pleadings and hearing allocated.

Orders

  • Pending further order the 67 cows and 66 calves (or such of them as are still living) are to be held by or on behalf of the defendants and managed in accordance with good stock management practices.
  • With plaintiffs' consent animals (including calves) may be sold on agreed terms; if urgent sale is required and parties cannot agree sale may be effected by a registered stock company with net proceeds held by the company in trust pending further order, or by agreement proceeds may be paid into a solicitor's trust...