CLARK ROAD DEVELOPMENTS LTD v GRANDE MEADOW DEVELOPMENTS LTD [2017] NZHC 2589

CLARK ROAD DEVELOPMENTS LTD v GRANDE MEADOW DEVELOPMENTS LTD [2017] NZHC 2589

The court declined the interim mandatory injunction because the relief sought was essentially an order for payment (an award of damages) incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996 interim measure regime and because arbitration was the appropriate forum; further, mandatory payment injunctions are rare and the facts did not justify this exceptional relief.

Citation
[2017] NZHC 2589
Parties
Applicant: CLARK ROAD DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED; First Respondent: GRANDE MEADOW DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED; Second Respondent: NEW ZEALAND GENERAL REALESTATE LIMITED; Third Respondent: KINGSTONE PROPERTY LIMITED; Fourth Respondent: CLARK ROAD LANDOWNERS GROUP (ICSA No 1) LIMITED; Fifth Respondent: CLARK ROAD LANDOWNERS GROUP (ICSA No 13) LIMITED; Sixth Respondent: CLARK ROAD LANDOWNERS GROUP (ICSA No 8) LIMITED
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
24 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Interim Mandatory Injunction Application / Interim Application Heard by Duty Judge
Outcome
Application declined
Legal Topics
Interim Injunction, Arbitration Agreement, Urgent Interlocutory Relief, Summary Judgment, Costs
Contract Law Arbitration Civil Procedure Equitable Remedies Interim Injunction Arbitration Agreement Urgent Interlocutory Relief Summary Judgment +1 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CLARK ROAD DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED

Applicant

GRANDE MEADOW DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED

First Respondent

NEW ZEALAND GENERAL REALESTATE LIMITED

Second Respondent

KINGSTONE PROPERTY LIMITED

Third Respondent

CLARK ROAD LANDOWNERS GROUP (ICSA No 1) LIMITED

Fourth Respondent

CLARK ROAD LANDOWNERS GROUP (ICSA No 13) LIMITED

Fifth Respondent

CLARK ROAD LANDOWNERS GROUP (ICSA No 8) LIMITED

Sixth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interim Mandatory Injunction Application / Interim Application Heard by Duty Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether court may grant an interim mandatory injunction ordering payment where parties agreed disputes go to arbitration except for urgent interlocutory relief
  2. 2 Whether the relief sought is effectively an award of damages and thus incompatible with interim measures under the Arbitration Act 1996 (Schedule 1 Articles 17–17B)
  3. 3 Whether special circumstances exist to justify a rare interim mandatory injunction for payment of money

Ratio Decidendi

The court declined the interim mandatory injunction because the relief sought was essentially an order for payment (an award of damages) incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996 interim measure regime and because arbitration was the appropriate forum; further, mandatory payment injunctions are rare and the facts did not justify this exceptional relief.

Court Disposition

Application declined

Orders

  • Application for interim mandatory injunction declined.
  • If defendants pursue indemnity costs beyond scale 2B, defendants to file memoranda of not more than five pages by Friday 3 November 2017; applicant to file response memorandum by Friday 10 November 2017.