New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Anton piller orders

Legal area

Court

19 May 2017

WORLDCLAIM NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v SAYERS [2017] NZHC 1053

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1053
Court

High Court

The Court concluded that the plaintiff had a strong prima facie case and provided sufficient evidence that the first defendant possessed relevant material and that there was a real risk of destruction of evidence and dissipation of assets; coupled with proposed safeguards (independent solicitors, undertakings, reporting and ability to apply to vary/discharge), the balance of justice warranted without-notice search orders, a freezing order and interim injunction to preserve evidence and assets pending trial.
29 Jan 2013

DARBY V OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE HC AK CIV-2007-404-3034

Citation

openlaw-34000105_c2df_4e93_ad3b_a4ed7f65c5f6.pdf
Court

High Court

The Official Assignee met the onus to show that the applicant's sustained and deliberate post-adjudication misconduct — including carrying on and managing businesses while undischarged, using aliases and fronts, disobeying court orders (Anton Piller), lack of cooperation with receivers and evidence of asset diversion and lack of remorse — created an unacceptable risk to the public and warranted extending the period before discharge; delays by the Official Assignee were not prejudicial. Accordingly the court exercised its s110(1)(c) discretion to defer discharge until 14 February 2014 (six yea…
5 Oct 2010

ANTHONY JAMES KIDD V EQUITY REALTY (1995) LIMITED AND ANOR CA CA95/2009

Citation

openlaw-397a4cde_6ec8_46c1_b250_0ebfe88d303f.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

While the Employment Court had jurisdiction under s221 to join a non-party in order to make retrospective costs orders, joinder and personal costs against Mr Kidd were inappropriate on the facts because there was no finding of impropriety, no evidence Axiom was insolvent at the relevant times and no finding that Mr Kidd was acting for his own benefit rather than the company's; accordingly the joinder and costs orders against him were set aside.
19 Dec 2008

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

Citation

openlaw-1435913d_c089_4741_881a_f27c447083c9.pdf
Court

High Court

On the interim material the court found that TGR had an arguable proprietary/equitable interest in a range of chattels, including an arguable equitable lien over the Ultra items arising from the 23 March 2001 agreement, and the defendants failed to show there was no arguable claim; accordingly the Anton Piller orders should remain in force with limited directions for inspection, valuation, insurance and storage pending substantive resolution.
18 Dec 2007

HOOLE AND ORS V DARBY AND ORS HC AK CIV-2006-404-5235

Citation

openlaw-289035e5_e567_4187_8d2c_f22c61df3f94.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court found that by his words and conduct Mr Darby intended Barry's present and future receivables to be made available to Hillcrest (and thus to CMFL under the GSA); equity treats that disposition as an effective equitable assignment of all receivables written up to the receivers' appointment (3 August 2006), so Hillcrest is the beneficial owner and receivers are entitled to repayments and original documentation; Mr Darby's contrary claim (that Hillcrest only acquired receivables when it had paid for them) was rejected as unsupported and recently invented.
15 Dec 2006

GORDON: OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL V GRAEME MURRAY SEXTON, RUSSELL BIERRE, MARK BUTTIMORE, JOHN TREGIDA HC HAM CIV 2006-419-1765

Citation

openlaw-c77dde21_e61b_4e58_8322_1e803a0f178b.pdf
Court

High Court

Application dismissed because the applicant's core legal arguments had no real prospect of success: habeas corpus does not apply to animals; Anton Piller relief was misconceived where impoundment was lawful; the Dog Control Act covers the conduct and registration of dogs (and the animal described was objectively a dog), and novel sovereignty and definitional claims cannot place the applicant outside the law of New Zealand; consequently no interim mandatory injunction was justified and costs were ordered against the applicant.
31 May 2006

EDL FASTENERS V ALLFAST SOLUTIONS HC AK CIV 2006-404-2283

Citation

openlaw-ab6733d1_e540_4d36_a43a_a8f4a98f5a0f.pdf
Court

High Court

The court granted the consent extension for paragraph 21 to 20 working days until 6 June 2006, refused the plaintiffs' proposed redefinition of discovery in paragraph 24(b) as overbroad and inconsistent with rr 295-298, ordered defendants to file statements of defence by 7 June and to serve full affidavits of documents by 30 June 2006, and retained paragraph 24(c) requiring defendants to list plaintiffs' suppliers and customers contacted, with that affidavit due by 6 June 2006 — balancing the need to preserve evidence and the proportionality of intrusive discovery obligations.
6 Dec 2004

GUY STUART KNOWLES, WAYNE HEASLIP AND NAMIB TRANSPORT LTD V JENNINGS ROADFREIGHT LTD CA CA242/04

Citation

openlaw-7385ef14_d9bd_4a2f_991a_fe5b50b1f846.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The High Court correctly refused to grant the ex parte Anton Piller order because the appellants failed to justify the highly intrusive search and cloning of computers; the preservation of the status quo by an interim injunction was adequate protection and the ex parte intrusive remedy would engage s21 NZBORA and required stronger justification; the High Court was not plainly wrong and the appeal is dismissed.