New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Breach of court orders

Legal area

Court

20 May 2021

BAILLIE v POLICE [2021] NZHC 1132

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1132
Court

High Court

The sentencing Judge did not err: given repeated serious offending while disqualified, high risk of harm, prior unsuccessful rehabilitative dispositions and lack of available residential programmes, the statutory purposes of accountability, denunciation, deterrence and protection could not be met by a less restrictive sentence, so imprisonment of 13.5 months was appropriate and home detention was rightly declined.
9 Jul 2019

HUAKIWI COPENHAGEN LOT 4 ORCHARD LTD v TE MOANA [2019] NZHC 1582

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1582
Court

High Court

Although the respondents deliberately breached clear interim orders after personal service and engaged in contemptuous conduct, their misconduct was motivated by genuine concern for the orchard and of short duration, falling short of the flagrant behaviour required for indemnity costs; however they unnecessarily caused Huakiwi additional expense so an uplift of 75% on category 2 Band B scale for steps to 11 February 2019 is appropriate.
13 Jun 2018

QU v ZENG [2018] NZHC 1395

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1395
Court

High Court

Defendant deliberately breached multiple freezing orders, including failing to file an affidavit of assets which allowed disposal of approximately $1.6m; the conduct constituted serious contempt but did not warrant imprisonment as a last resort, and a 250‑hour community work sentence under the Sentencing Act 2002 properly addresses the gravity and will be more salutary than imprisonment.
8 May 2017

TANUVASA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2017] NZHC 939

Citation

[2017] NZHC 939
Court

High Court

The High Court held the District Court erred in selecting a 12-month starting point as excessive on these facts; an appropriate starting point was eight to nine months and after a 25% Hessell discount the substituted sentence is six months and two weeks' imprisonment; home detention was declined because the sentencing judge legitimately concluded, on reasonable grounds and given the appellant's history of breaching court orders, that the appellant was unlikely to comply with a non-custodial electronically monitored sentence and the District Court did not err in that exercise of discretion.
16 Dec 2010

MIKITASOV V COLLINS HC WHA CIV-2008-488-000053

Citation

openlaw-099848b2_17c9_4ef3_bc7b_3f15ae5d5189.pdf
Court

High Court

Court awarded indemnity costs of $55,934.42 (GST inclusive) against Sean Collins based on supplied invoices but excluded private investigator invoices relating to Bernard Collins. Court dismissed contempt declarations as to Bernard Collins and Angelina Flego but awarded Ms Flego scale costs of $5,200 against the applicant; uplift was not justified despite breaches because the application had merit.

New Zealand Case Law

BAILLIE v POLICE [2021] NZHC 1132

HUAKIWI COPENHAGEN LOT 4 ORCHARD LTD v TE MOANA [2019] NZHC 1582

QU v ZENG [2018] NZHC 1395

TANUVASA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2017] NZHC 939

MIKITASOV V COLLINS HC WHA CIV-2008-488-000053