New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Arrest order

Legal area

Court

26 Nov 2021

STYLO MEDICAL SERVICES LTD v HUM HOSPITALITY LTD [2021] NZHC 3191

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3191
Court

High Court

The Court found beyond reasonable doubt that Brewer J's judgment and the sealed orders clearly cancelled the lease, Hum was given notice and remained in occupation, and there was no reasonable excuse for non‑compliance; accordingly the discretionary power to issue an arrest order was properly exercised and an order for the arrest of director Roseanne Armitage was made to lie in Court until 8 February 2022, to be quashed if the property is vacated before that date.
8 Mar 2017

HOROWHENUA 11 (LAKE) PART RESERVATION TRUST v TAUEKI [2017] NZHC 379

Citation

[2017] NZHC 379
Court

High Court

The High Court declined to grant a stay or extend time because the applicable appeal periods had expired, any extension must be sought in the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court under the relevant rules, and the applicant failed to demonstrate the requisite risk of substantial miscarriage of justice to justify a stay.
10 Feb 2017

DAMIEN GRANT AND STEVEN KHOV v STEPHEN ANDREWS [2017] NZHC 130

Citation

[2017] NZHC 130
Court

High Court

An Associate Judge does not have jurisdiction to make an arrest order under HCR 17.18 where s 26I of the Judicature Act 1908 bars Associate Judges from making arrest orders; the proper course is to refer the matter to a High Court Judge under s 26M.
10 Jan 2017

HOROWHENUA 11 (LAKE) PART RESERVATION TRUST v TAUEKI [2017] NZHC 4

Citation

[2017] NZAR 221
Court

High Court

The Court concluded the prerequisites for an arrest order were met: the injunction and possession order were clear, the liable party had notice (he appealed) and affidavit evidence demonstrated wilful and inexcusable non-compliance; accordingly an arrest order was authorised but its execution was deferred, with the order not to be issued before 10 March 2017 and the liable party liable to be arrested on or after that date to be brought before the High Court on 13 March 2017 at 10:00 am.
22 Jun 2012

AM v PM HC WN CIV-2011-485-2303

Citation

openlaw-fa67b379_3b25_41f8_a059_d4d74dc15933.pdf
Court

High Court

The respondent wilfully disobeyed a clear and served High Court order placing the children under New Zealand guardianship; therefore the Court was entitled to issue an arrest order (form E9) authorising arrest, production before the High Court in Wellington at 10am within 72 hours after arrest in New Zealand, and potential committal under r 17.85 if non-compliance continues, while reserving immediate committal until the respondent is produced before the Court.
18 Feb 2010

K J GILLESPIE V M PERE AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2009-488-000533

Citation

openlaw-a0335482_e7fc_44b7_a368_ddae07d8b799.pdf
Court

High Court

The application for arrest and committal was refused because the applicant failed to prove service of the original Maori Land Court order on the respondents and the judge was not satisfied that their non-compliance was wilful and inexcusable; additionally the judge concluded respondents may not have been capable of complying because the Portacom may be owned by a third party (Ngati Kura Maori Incorporation).

New Zealand Case Law

STYLO MEDICAL SERVICES LTD v HUM HOSPITALITY LTD [2021] NZHC 3191

HOROWHENUA 11 (LAKE) PART RESERVATION TRUST v TAUEKI [2017] NZHC 379

DAMIEN GRANT AND STEVEN KHOV v STEPHEN ANDREWS [2017] NZHC 130

HOROWHENUA 11 (LAKE) PART RESERVATION TRUST v TAUEKI [2017] NZHC 4

AM v PM HC WN CIV-2011-485-2303

K J GILLESPIE V M PERE AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2009-488-000533