HENDERSON AND ANOR V REDDIFORD AND ORS HC CHCH CIV 2009-409-001426

HENDERSON AND ANOR V REDDIFORD AND ORS HC CHCH CIV 2009-409-001426

Because the first defendant through his solicitor indicated he would not oppose and the court was satisfied the proposed clause 1(a) could bind him while allowing him to continue his business, the court granted the interim injunction in terms of the Notice of Motion clause 1(a) and set a review hearing by telephone...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
openlaw-674d3458_3355_4328_a30f_18ddcb6f05ef.pdf
Parties
First Plaintiff: Jeremy Nigel Henderson; Second Plaintiff: Carolyn Jane Tapley; First Defendant: Jonathon William Heywood Reddiford; Second Defendant: Institute of Financial Advisers Inc; Third Defendant: David Hutton
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
10 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Interim Injunction / Hearing on Pickwick Basis; Interim Injunction Decision Made
Outcome
Interim injunction granted in terms of the Notice of Motion clause 1(a); continuation to be reviewed 31 July 2009; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunction, Pickwick Order, Case Management, Restraining Orders, Leave to Apply for Further Relief
Injunctions Civil Procedure Financial Services Regulation Interim Injunction Pickwick Order Case Management Restraining Orders Leave to Apply for Further Relief

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jeremy Nigel Henderson

First Plaintiff

Carolyn Jane Tapley

Second Plaintiff

Jonathon William Heywood Reddiford

First Defendant

Institute of Financial Advisers Inc

Second Defendant

David Hutton

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application for Interim Injunction / Hearing on Pickwick Basis; Interim Injunction Decision Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an interim injunction should be granted against the first defendant
  2. 2 Whether the terms of the proposed order can bind the first defendant while allowing him to continue business as a financial adviser
  3. 3 Whether the order should continue pending review on a specified date

Ratio Decidendi

Because the first defendant through his solicitor indicated he would not oppose and the court was satisfied the proposed clause 1(a) could bind him while allowing him to continue his business, the court granted the interim injunction in terms of the Notice of Motion clause 1(a) and set a review hearing by telephone conference on 31 July 2009.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted in terms of the Notice of Motion clause 1(a); continuation to be reviewed 31 July 2009; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Interim injunction made in terms of Notice of Motion clause 1(a)
  • Continuation of the order to be reviewed on Friday 31 July 2009 at 9.30 am by telephone conference