MAGELLAN INVESTMENTS LIMITED v ST HELIERS BAY CAFE & BISTRO LIMITED [2014] NZHC 244

MAGELLAN INVESTMENTS LIMITED v ST HELIERS BAY CAFE & BISTRO LIMITED [2014] NZHC 244

Application for a mandatory interim injunction was refused because the status quo (cessation of solid fuel use) was preserved, the plaintiffs could be adequately compensated by damages, the remedy sought was wide, uncertain and effectively permanent, experts disagreed on causation and remediation so the balance of convenience and overall justice did not favor injunctive relief.

Citation
[2014] NZHC 244
Parties
First Plaintiff: Magellan Investments Limited; Second Plaintiff: Robin Duncan Sheffield; Second Plaintiff: Florence Winifred Sheffield; First Defendant: St Heliers Bay Cafe & Bistro Limited; Second Defendant: Scott David MacDonald Brown; Second Defendant: Jackie Lee Grant
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
24 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Litigation Commercial Lease, Nuisance, Contract, Building Compliance / Interlocutory Hearing (application for Interim Injunction Decided)
Outcome
Application for interim injunction refused
Legal Topics
Interim Injunction, Nuisance, Misrepresentation, Contractual Mistake, Building Code Compliance (as1668.2), Deed of Settlement, Specific Performance, Storage of Hazardous Materials, Food and Hygiene Regulations
Contract Law Tort (nuisance) Property/lease Law Building and Construction Law Consumer Protection (fair Trading) Interim Injunction Nuisance Misrepresentation +6 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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Magellan Investments Limited

First Plaintiff

Robin Duncan Sheffield

Second Plaintiff

Florence Winifred Sheffield

Second Plaintiff

St Heliers Bay Cafe & Bistro Limited

First Defendant

Scott David MacDonald Brown

Second Defendant

Jackie Lee Grant

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Litigation Commercial Lease, Nuisance, Contract, Building Compliance / Interlocutory Hearing (application for Interim Injunction Decided)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a serious question to be tried on nuisance, misrepresentation and contractual mistake
  2. 2 Whether the balance of convenience favors granting a mandatory interim injunction requiring remedial works or cessation of activities
  3. 3 Whether the deed of settlement (Deed) was validly cancelled or subsists and whether it bars relief

Ratio Decidendi

Application for a mandatory interim injunction was refused because the status quo (cessation of solid fuel use) was preserved, the plaintiffs could be adequately compensated by damages, the remedy sought was wide, uncertain and effectively permanent, experts disagreed on causation and remediation so the balance of convenience and overall justice did not favor injunctive relief.

Court Disposition

Application for interim injunction refused

Orders

  • Application for interim injunction refused.
  • If parties are unable to agree on costs the defendants are to file a memorandum within 28 days of the decision and the plaintiffs are to file any reply within 7 days thereafter.