MACKINTOSH AND HALL v REED [2016] NZHC 914

MACKINTOSH AND HALL v REED [2016] NZHC 914

The Court granted a temporary interim injunction because the applicant demonstrated urgency and a real risk that imminent planting would require the respondent to remain in occupation for a further 12 months, thereby frustrating the intended benefit of the heads of agreement; an undertaking as to damages was filed and only a limited concession (not to plant tomorrow) had been made by the respondent, so preserving the status quo until an urgent inter partes hearing was warranted.

Citation
[2016] NZHC 914
Parties
First Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant: J B Mackintosh; First Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant: M C Hall; Second Plaintiff: M W Reed; Third Plaintiff: S T Reed; First Defendant and Counterclaimant: P D Thomas; Second Defendant: E M Marr; Third Defendant: A M Syme
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
5 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceeding Concerning Estate and Property Dispute / Application for Interim Injunction Without Notice (urgent Interlocutory)
Outcome
Interim injunction granted on a temporary basis; urgent hearing ordered to determine the matter inter partes; costs reserved
Legal Topics
Interim Injunction, Without Notice Application, Heads of Agreement, Possession, Balance of Convenience, Undertaking as to Damages
Civil Equity Property Estate Administration Injunctions Contract/settlement Interim Injunction Without Notice Application +4 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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J B Mackintosh

First Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant

M C Hall

First Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant

M W Reed

Second Plaintiff

S T Reed

Third Plaintiff

P D Thomas

First Defendant and Counterclaimant

E M Marr

Second Defendant

A M Syme

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Proceeding Concerning Estate and Property Dispute / Application for Interim Injunction Without Notice (urgent Interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant an interim injunction without notice restraining the Second Plaintiff from sowing/planting on the Yaldhurst property
  2. 2 Whether immediate planting would frustrate the mediated heads of agreement and cause irreparable prejudice to the Second Defendant
  3. 3 Whether the prerequisites for an ex parte interim injunction (urgency and undertaking as to damages) are satisfied

Ratio Decidendi

The Court granted a temporary interim injunction because the applicant demonstrated urgency and a real risk that imminent planting would require the respondent to remain in occupation for a further 12 months, thereby frustrating the intended benefit of the heads of agreement; an undertaking as to damages was filed and only a limited concession (not to plant tomorrow) had been made by the respondent, so preserving the status quo until an urgent inter partes hearing was warranted.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted on a temporary basis; urgent hearing ordered to determine the matter inter partes; costs reserved

Orders

  • Second Plaintiff M W Reed is restrained from taking any further steps in the sowing/planting of crops at the property on Ryans Road and Greys Road, Yaldhurst (identifier CB 13A/1098 and CB 7A/401) or any other steps that would otherwise necessitate him or his entities remaining on that property, until further order...
  • Costs of this application reserved