5 Apr 2019
Clause 70 of the TTL constitution is an arbitration agreement binding on the shareholders; the second defendant did not submit the substantive dispute to the Court; clause 70 is not inoperative or incapable of performance given statutory default appointment provisions; accordingly the second cause of action is stayed pending arbitration under clause 70.
20 Dec 2018
The Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the mandatory interim orders sought because they fall outside the Arbitration Act's definition of 'interim measures' and would substantially undermine the parties' agreed arbitration process; the Court's inherent jurisdiction is constrained by the Act and the arbitration agreement and cannot be used to circumvent arbitration, and no necessary basis existed to make orders against the proposed expert as a true third party; accordingly the proceeding is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
24 Oct 2017
The court declined the interim mandatory injunction because the relief sought was essentially an order for payment (an award of damages) incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996 interim measure regime and because arbitration was the appropriate forum; further, mandatory payment injunctions are rare and the facts did not justify this exceptional relief.
26 Feb 2016
On the material before the Court TransDiesel demonstrated a reasonably arguable equitable set-off against the respondents: documentary linkage via the head distributor agreement (which reached affiliated companies), an unchallenged damages calculation showing a claim of the order alleged, and unexplained respondent silence made the set-off reasonably arguable; accordingly under s290(4)(b) the statutory demands (excluding post-invoice interest) were set aside. The Court did not decide the arbitrationstay issue because s290(4)(b) sufficed to dispose of the application.
24 Aug 2015
Leave to appeal was refused because, although the public importance of whether the right to an independent and impartial tribunal is non-derogable was acknowledged, this case was unsuitable for deciding that principle given the absence of contemporaneous objection and the need for a fresh exercise of the discretion whether to set aside the award; further, the proposed fresh evidence was not sufficiently new or outcome-determinative and the appeal could not change the distribution of settled Treaty funds.
4 Mar 2015
Indemnity costs were declined because the High Court Rules do not support a presumption of indemnity for commencing proceedings in breach of an arbitration agreement, the plaintiffs' conduct was not vexatious or an obvious breach, the arbitration coverage was not plain, and standard costs principles therefore apply; defendant awarded 2B costs and reasonable disbursements.
10 Dec 2014
The Court found that a binding construction contract existed by virtue of the parties' email exchange on 1 March 2014 (acceptance communicated at 5:57pm) and confirmed by execution and subsequent communications and conduct; the contract incorporated NZS 3910:2003 including an arbitration clause; therefore Ganellen's appearance under protest to jurisdiction could not be dismissed and the proper course was to stay the Court proceeding and refer the parties to arbitration.
21 Oct 2014
The Court found that a concluded construction contract and an accompanying arbitration agreement existed: acceptance was effectively communicated through authorised agents and email exchanges (notably the 1 March correspondence and the 29 April/2 May exchanges), and subsequent conduct confirmed consensus; accordingly New Core's application to dismiss the appearance under protest failed and the proceedings were stayed and referred to arbitration.
12 Mar 2014
Applying a prima facie review the Court found the arbitration clause in the 6 July 1997 documentation is arguably broad enough to cover the dispute over whether a partnership existed and therefore the proceeding must be stayed and the question left to an arbitral tribunal to determine the existence and scope of the arbitration agreement; the plaintiff's application to set aside the defendants' jurisdictional protest was dismissed.
29 May 2013
The added words in art 8(1) of the Arbitration Act 1996 were intended to permit courts to refuse a stay where the defendant has no arguable basis for disputing the plaintiff's claim; accordingly the same 'arguable defence' summary judgment test applies to applications to stay under art 8(1).