New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Anton piller order

Legal area

Court

3 Nov 2017

WALKER v FORBES.6 [2017] NZHC 2694

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2694
Court

High Court

Applications dismissed. The Court held established authority precludes discovery of unpleaded insurance information under r 8.19; r 1.2 does not expand discovery to private settlement negotiations; r 8.20 is discretionary and should not be exercised where the information relied on derives from without‑prejudice communications, the insurer is already aware and s 9 LRA protects the claimant, and the plaintiffs are not genuinely proceeding against the insurer but seek information for settlement/enforceability purposes; disclosure would improperly intrude into the defendant's financial position a…
4 Jun 2009

ROSSOD HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOR V RICHARD WILLIAM PRICE HC TAU CIV 2008-470-000316

Citation

openlaw-b25ecbdc_7777_48bf_8657_ce76951e9806.pdf
Court

High Court

Joinder of the trustees was granted because they are necessary parties to enable effective enforcement of any judgment against assets that received the sale proceeds; questions about the applicability of s149 and other defenses to trustees and adequacy of pleadings are matters for trial and/or amendment; the concurrent shareholder proceeding was not held to be an abuse of process because shareholders have a distinct interest and there is a realistic prospect that company recovery against the director may be insufficient, making recourse to trust assets a legitimate claim.
22 Dec 2008

HUNTER GRAIN LIMITED V PRICE AND ANOR HC TAU CIV 2008-470-192

Citation

openlaw-62809416_decc_4247_8e22_dc236b267830.pdf
Court

High Court

Because the first defendant removed confidential company information and destroyed a hard drive without proper authority and there was evidence of breach of fiduciary duties and risk of misuse, the ex parte Anton Piller order and its execution and the interim injunction were justified; those parts attract indemnity costs. However the contempt application failed to meet the high threshold and no order as to costs was made for that application; remaining applications attract ordinary category 2B costs. Quantum of indemnity costs is limited to what is reasonable and is reserved if parties cannot…
28 Oct 2008

TGR HELICORP LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) AND ANOR V ROGERS AND ROGERS HC AK CIV 2008-404-004109

Citation

openlaw-f213cb2a_41c7_4869_a687_594ed3e9d5fc.pdf
Court

High Court

The court permitted the conditional release of specified Ultra items for sale only where the sale is to a buyer acceptable to the receiver and defendants and only after a specified sum (US$100,000 or other agreed sum) is paid into the joint trust account of LeeSalmonLong in the names of the first plaintiff, Ultra Helicopters Inc (NZ) Limited and the defendants to be held on interest bearing deposit pending further order; the 40 foot container was held not to be subject to the court's order and costs were reserved.
3 Jul 2008

KOOLFOAM INDUSTRIES LTD V K BATH AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2007-404-004554

Citation

openlaw-a6b08470_2c2b_4823_87f2_cf60c5ed835d.pdf
Court

High Court

The court will give effect to a valid consensual settlement by discharging the interim injunction and substituting a consent injunction for a fixed term, and will not adjourn proceedings sine die where supervision of compliance with staged payments is required — instead the matter is to be placed for call before the Duty Judge in the week commencing 2 March 2009.
8 Feb 2008

BRONWYN ESTATE LTD AND ORS V GARETH RUSSEL HOOLE AND ORS SC 81/2007

Citation

SC 81/2007
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the application did not satisfy s14 criteria: Wilson J's confirmation was an orthodox application of settled principles, the issue did not raise matters of public or general importance and there was no appearance of miscarriage of justice.
12 Oct 2007

H W RICHARDSON GROUP LIMITED V MASLIN STEVENSON AND COMPANY LIMITED AND ORS HC INV CIV-2007-425-000573

Citation

openlaw-63e30ffe_331e_4214_a753_4526ae114e8e.pdf
Court

High Court

The Anton Piller order was refused because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate quantified substantial loss and did not provide clear evidence that the respondents intended to destroy or conceal the documents; those deficiencies meant the draconian remedy was not justified.
30 May 2007

HOOLE AND PITFIELD IN THEIR CAPACITY AS THE RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS OF HILLCREST SERVICES LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) AND ANOR V DARBY AND ORS HC AK CIV 2006-404-5235

Citation

openlaw-f3c83381_7ec6_41c9_b7bc_44c5a51ba907.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave to cross-examine was refused because the circumstances did not meet the 'special circumstances' threshold in r 253(2) and cross-examination would not produce useful evidence; access to forensic computer material was resolved by consent orders requiring the forensic copy to be retained by the consultant, restricted access, and a staged disclosure procedure giving the first defendant notice and opportunity to object with court resolution if necessary.
30 May 2007

HOOLE AND PITFIELD IN THEIR CAPACITY AS THE RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS OF HILLCREST SERVICES LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) AND ANOR V DARBY AND ORS HC AK CIV 2006-404-5235

Citation

openlaw-c317add2_6709_46fa_bce6_3141be8fc6c7.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave was granted for Mr Darby to represent the corporate defendants because there was sufficient identity of interest between his personal position and that of the corporate plaintiffs to justify the exercise of the court's discretion under Mannix; interlocutory relief concerning return of documents and compliance with order 9 was adjourned and the obligation to comply with order 9 was suspended pending further order; issues of severance and unresolved interlocutory matters are to be determined by the trial judge or at a case management conference before Lang J after 15 June 2007.
30 Mar 2007

HOOLE AND ANOR V DARBY AND ORS HC AK CIV 2006-404-005235

Citation

openlaw-3df5e76c_9551_48cb_aae0_e2e441907d38.pdf
Court

High Court

Because Mr Darby and the corporate defendants repeatedly frustrated and disobeyed the 14 September discovery orders, withheld and altered material and threatened destruction of evidence, the receivers were justified in obtaining and executing Anton Piller orders; accordingly the defendants are jointly and severally liable to indemnify the plaintiffs for the costs reasonably and necessarily incurred in obtaining and executing those orders (NZD 57,924.77), with hearing costs fixed at 2B for the contested costs hearing.