MITCHELL v MITCHELL [2018] NZHC 939

MITCHELL v MITCHELL [2018] NZHC 939

Heath J correctly dismissed the interim injunction because the plaintiffs had no seriously arguable case and there was no lack of authority to prevent the trustees signing the Vesting Agreement; assurances about the 'initial period' were relevant but did not alter that conclusion; accordingly respondents were entitled to costs, fixed at category 2 band B with certification for second counsel.

Citation
[2018] NZHC 939
Parties
Applicants: Hamuera Walker Mitchell; Hokimate Kahukiwa; Peter Staite; Veronica Butterworth; First Respondent: Te Kiri Whero Ewa Makareta Mitchell; Second Respondents: Malcolm Tukuno Short; Alexander James Wilson; Third Respondents: Warwick Morehu; Rimini Denis Paul; Katarina Kereama; Donna Hall; Fourth Respondents: Te Kotahitanga o Ngatiwhakaue Assets Trust; Fifth Respondents: Te Minita Whanaketanga Maori; The Associate Minister of Tourism; Sixth Respondent: The New Zealand Arts & Crafts Institute; Seventh Respondent: Bryce Murray
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
3 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Interim Injunction / Hearing on Interlocutory Injunction Application; Judgment Dismissing Application and Fixing Costs
Outcome
Interim injunction application dismissed; costs awarded to the first, second, third and seventh respondents
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Costs, Authority of Trustees, High Court Rules Application
Civil Procedure Equity Administrative Law Interim Injunctions Costs Authority of Trustees High Court Rules Application

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hamuera Walker Mitchell; Hokimate Kahukiwa; Peter Staite; Veronica Butterworth

Applicants

Te Kiri Whero Ewa Makareta Mitchell

First Respondent

Malcolm Tukuno Short; Alexander James Wilson

Second Respondents

Warwick Morehu; Rimini Denis Paul; Katarina Kereama; Donna Hall

Third Respondents

Te Kotahitanga o Ngatiwhakaue Assets Trust

Fourth Respondents

Te Minita Whanaketanga Maori; The Associate Minister of Tourism

Fifth Respondents

The New Zealand Arts & Crafts Institute

Sixth Respondent

Bryce Murray

Seventh Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application for Interim Injunction / Hearing on Interlocutory Injunction Application; Judgment Dismissing Application and Fixing Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an interim injunction should be granted to prevent execution of the Vesting Agreement
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs had a seriously arguable case and whether there was a lack of authority by the trustees
  3. 3 Whether assurances about the 'initial period' altered entitlement to injunctive relief

Ratio Decidendi

Heath J correctly dismissed the interim injunction because the plaintiffs had no seriously arguable case and there was no lack of authority to prevent the trustees signing the Vesting Agreement; assurances about the 'initial period' were relevant but did not alter that conclusion; accordingly respondents were entitled to costs, fixed at category 2 band B with certification for second counsel.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction application dismissed; costs awarded to the first, second, third and seventh respondents

Orders

  • Costs and disbursements awarded to the first, second, third and seventh respondents on a category 2 basis, band B for each step
  • Second counsel certification granted for the award of costs