L V J HC ROT CIV-2010-463-000354

L V J HC ROT CIV-2010-463-000354

The Family Court has jurisdiction under the PRA to make interim mandatory interlocutory orders against a New Zealand domiciled party to preserve movable property situated overseas; rule 182 provides a broad procedural basis for such mandatory relief and is not limited by rule 184 (which governs freezing orders confined to assets in New Zealand); accordingly the mandatory injunction ordering transfer of specified overseas-held funds into a New Zealand stakeholder was lawful, but the Court varied the stakeholder to the Registrar of the Family Court to ensure neutrality.

Citation
openlaw-524689d7_a82e_4e3c_a7d3_dcbb02c999cd.pdf
Parties
Appellant (wife): L; Respondent (husband): J
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
3 June 2010
Procedural Posture
High Court Appeal From Family Court Under the Property (relationships) Act 1976 / Judgment on Appeal (hearing 26 May 2010; Judgment 3 June 2010)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed except that the terms of the Family Court injunction of 17 August 2009 are varied to direct transfer of the specified funds to the Registrar of the Family Court at Whakatane and other related directions; costs awarded to respondent on a 2B basis; leave reserved for clarification applications.
Legal Topics
Interim Mandatory Injunctions, Mareva/freezing Orders, Family Court Jurisdiction Under PRA, Extra Territorial Disposition of Movables, Rules 182 and 184 Family Court Rules 2002, Sections 7, 22, 43, 44 Property (relationships) Act 1976
Family Law Relationship Property Civil Procedure Injunctions Private International Law Interim Mandatory Injunctions Mareva/freezing Orders Family Court Jurisdiction Under PRA +3 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L

Appellant (wife)

J

Respondent (husband)

Procedural Posture

High Court Appeal From Family Court Under the Property (relationships) Act 1976 / Judgment on Appeal (hearing 26 May 2010; Judgment 3 June 2010)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Family Court has power to grant a mandatory interlocutory injunction requiring a New Zealand domiciled party to transfer funds held offshore into New Zealand
  2. 2 Whether rule 182 of the Family Court Rules 2002 is limited by rule 184 such that orders in relation to assets outside New Zealand are prohibited
  3. 3 Whether the assets in issue are subject to relationship property jurisdiction and whether interim preservation orders are appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The Family Court has jurisdiction under the PRA to make interim mandatory interlocutory orders against a New Zealand domiciled party to preserve movable property situated overseas; rule 182 provides a broad procedural basis for such mandatory relief and is not limited by rule 184 (which governs freezing orders confined to assets in New Zealand); accordingly the mandatory injunction ordering transfer of specified overseas-held funds into a New Zealand stakeholder was lawful, but the Court varied the stakeholder to the Registrar of the Family Court to ensure neutrality.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed except that the terms of the Family Court injunction of 17 August 2009 are varied to direct transfer of the specified funds to the Registrar of the Family Court at Whakatane and other related directions; costs awarded to respondent on a 2B basis; leave reserved for clarification applications.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed except as to variation of injunction terms
  • L ordered to pay and transfer all funds referred to in the Family Court orders of 17 August 2009 to the Family Court at Whakatane