New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Anti-suit injunction

Legal area

Court

14 Apr 2023

MARITIME MUTUAL INSURANCE ASSOCIATION (NZ) LTD v SILICA SANDPORT INC [2023] NZHC 793

Citation

[2023] NZHC 793
Court

High Court

There was a high degree of probability that the insurance contracts incorporated the Association's Rules including an arbitration clause (Auckland or London), the New Zealand Court had a sufficient interest to enforce that agreement, no strong reasons were shown to refuse relief, and the interests of justice required upholding the arbitration agreement; accordingly an anti-suit injunction restraining the Guyana proceedings was granted.
4 Nov 2022

KEA INVESTMENTS LTD v WIKELEY FAMILY TRUSTEE LTD [2022] NZHC 2881

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2881
Court

High Court

The High Court had personal jurisdiction over the New Zealand company and sufficient connection to the dispute; Kea established serious questions to be tried on alleged fraud, forgery, tortious conspiracy and abuse of process and showed that further enforcement and discovery steps abroad would be oppressive and vexatious. Given urgency and risk that defendants might defeat relief if warned, without-notice limited interim relief was justified. The balance of convenience and interests of justice required narrowly framed orders to preserve the status quo pending an on-notice hearing.
15 Apr 2021

QIUFEN LU v INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED [2021] NZSC 33

Citation

[2021] NZSC 33
Court

Supreme Court

The Court dismissed leave applications because the Court of Appeal properly applied Almond v Read and the proposed appeal was clearly hopeless and did not raise matters of public importance or an appearance of miscarriage of justice; there were no exceptional circumstances to permit a direct appeal from the High Court to the Supreme Court and the High Court strike-out and costs decisions were orthodox and unexceptional.
23 Dec 2020

QIUFEN LU v INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED [2020] NZSC 160

Citation

[2020] NZSC 160
Court

Supreme Court

The fee waiver was refused because the issues raised were fact-specific and applied settled legal principles rather than a matter of genuine public interest; applicants did not rely on inability to pay and indicated willingness to pay; therefore the Registrar's refusal to waive the $1,100 filing fee was upheld and the review dismissed.
2 Nov 2020

LU v INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED [2020] NZCA 538

Citation

[2020] NZCA 538
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court refused leave to adduce further evidence because the proffered material was irrelevant; refused extension of time because the delay was moderately long, inadequately explained, and compounded by the applicants' abusive conduct in filing duplicative proceedings, and because the proposed appeal was plainly hopeless; consequently applications for stays were declined and respondents awarded costs.
7 Jul 2020

Lu v Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (New Zealand) Limited [2020] NZHC 1604

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1604
Court

High Court

The plaintiffs' claims were misconceived and plainly untenable and the Bank was the successful party; therefore costs follow the event and the Bank is entitled to a scale 2B award of costs. Translation work was a reasonable and necessary disbursement recoverable under r14.12(1), but internal translation entries warranted a modest adjustment: internal translation disbursements awarded at a rounded $2,800; external translation fees included. Other objections (similarity with China proceedings, inclusion of second plaintiff, financial hardship) did not justify refusing or reducing costs and are…
5 Mar 2020

Lu v Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (New Zealand) Limited [2020] NZHC 402

Citation

[2020] NZHC 402
Court

High Court

All pleaded and foreshadowed causes of action were untenable on the pleaded facts and contemporary documentary record: alleged promise to provide future lending was at best an ambiguous future intention subject to bank approval and inconsistent with documents and the borrowers' defaults; equitable estoppel failed for lack of clear unambiguous promise and because departure would not be unconscionable; CGA/service and fiduciary/duty claims were unsupported; PLA s176 claim failed because the bank took reasonable steps, followed professional advice and marketing and the sale outcome reflected mar…
10 Oct 2011

A K R V S P HC AK CIV 2011-404-002998

Citation

openlaw-249e8abc_8853_4ba3_8155_4cfd4388877b.pdf
Court

High Court

Section 182(1) requires that a New Zealand court make an order under Part 4 of the Family Proceedings Act (or there be a final decree under the Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1963) before the Family Court may exercise s182 powers; recognition under s44 of an overseas dissolution does not constitute an order made under Part 4, therefore the Family Court lacked jurisdiction to hear Ms R's s182 application and the cross-appeal was allowed.