FIRST SOVEREIGN TRUST LIMITED v INFINITY FOUNDATION LIMITED [2015] NZHC 2136

FIRST SOVEREIGN TRUST LIMITED v INFINITY FOUNDATION LIMITED [2015] NZHC 2136

The mandatory interim injunction was declined because the contractual position was not sufficiently clear to justify mandatory relief, damages were an adequate and calculable remedy, the Department of Internal Affairs had processed the surrenders making injunctive relief likely futile, and the balance of convenience...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] NZHC 2136
Parties
First Applicant: First Sovereign Trust Limited; Second Applicant: NZL Local Limited; Second Applicant: NZL Office Limited; Second Applicant: NZL Marquis Limited; Respondent: Infinity Foundation Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
31 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Contract Dispute Under Contracts (privity) Act 1982 and Tort of Unlawful Interference; Regulatory Context Under Gambling Act 2003 / Interlocutory Application for Mandatory Injunction Heard and Declined
Outcome
Interlocutory mandatory injunction application dismissed/declined
Legal Topics
Mandatory Interim Injunction, Third Party Beneficiary Under Contracts (privity) Act 1982, Damages as Adequate Remedy, Venue Licence Surrender and Transfer, Statutory Prohibition on Payments Under Gambling Act 2003 S118
Contract Law Tort (unlawful Interference) Equity (injunctive Relief) Gambling Regulation/administrative Law Mandatory Interim Injunction Third Party Beneficiary Under Contracts (privity) Act 1982 Damages as Adequate Remedy Venue Licence Surrender and Transfer +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

First Sovereign Trust Limited

First Applicant

NZL Local Limited

Second Applicant

NZL Office Limited

Second Applicant

NZL Marquis Limited

Second Applicant

Infinity Foundation Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contract Dispute Under Contracts (privity) Act 1982 and Tort of Unlawful Interference; Regulatory Context Under Gambling Act 2003 / Interlocutory Application for Mandatory Injunction Heard and Declined

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants established a serious question to be tried under Contracts (Privity) Act and tort
  2. 2 Whether a mandatory interim injunction should compel respondent to revoke/extend surrender notices and not frustrate transfers
  3. 3 Whether applicants have a clear contractual right as third party beneficiaries

Ratio Decidendi

The mandatory interim injunction was declined because the contractual position was not sufficiently clear to justify mandatory relief, damages were an adequate and calculable remedy, the Department of Internal Affairs had processed the surrenders making injunctive relief likely futile, and the balance of convenience did not favour intrusive mandatory relief in a regulated gambling context.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory mandatory injunction application dismissed/declined

Orders

  • Mandatory interlocutory injunction refused
  • Costs on the interlocutory application to lie where they fall