New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Consent order

Legal area

Court

20 Mar 2023

CHATHAM ISLANDS MANAGEMENT LIMITED v CHATHAM HARDWARE LIMITED [2023] NZHC 562

Citation

[2023] NZHC 562
Court

High Court

A stay of the winding up proceeding was granted by consent pending the outcome of the defendant's appeal (CA33/2023) on the condition that the defendant pays $220,000 into Court to be held in the name of the plaintiff on interest bearing deposit; costs of the stay application were reserved and the matter was removed from the liquidation list with leave to apply further.
22 Dec 2022

XIAOBING LU v YIJUN GONG [2022] NZHC 3588

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3588
Court

High Court

Both applications for costs were dismissed because the applicants' claim that earlier Calderbank marketing would have achieved a higher sale price was speculative and hypothetical, there was no evidentiary basis to conclude the respondent would have received more under the earlier offers, and the repayment claims were minimal or already satisfied; accordingly no order for costs and costs to lie where they fall.
1 Mar 2022

SUTHERLAND v A [2022] NZHC 325

Citation

[2022] NZHC 325
Court

High Court

The caveator was the successful party because he obtained the relief he sought; there was no clear mutual agreement allocating costs in these administration proceedings; therefore ordinary costs principles apply and both parties are awarded costs to be paid from the estate on a 2B basis in the sums set out in the counsel schedules.
10 Feb 2022

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v BACKHOUSE [2022] NZHC 144

Citation

[2022] NZHC 144
Court

High Court

A restraining order was appropriate and was made by consent in the terms of the draft order attached to the parties' joint memorandum; the consent did not resolve or prejudice future forfeiture proceedings.
5 Nov 2021

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v TRENT ILTON [2021] NZHC 2976

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2976
Court

High Court

Because the respondents consented and the statutory criteria under ss 21, 24 and 25 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 were engaged by the seizure, the Court made a restraining order by consent over $37,828.30 and ordered the cash be held in the Official Assignee's custody and control, and vacated the scheduled hearing.
28 Oct 2021

LEES v PREBBLE [2021] NZHC 2879

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2879
Court

High Court

Because the respondent accepted the applicant's interest and the parties consented, the Court ordered under s 143 Land Transfer Act 2017 that the caveat not lapse; no order as to costs.
29 Sept 2021

LOTT v TUATAPERE SALEYARDS CO LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2021] NZHC 2588 [29 September 2021]

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2588
Court

High Court

Because the parties consented and leave had been reserved with reasons set out in the Court's earlier judgment of 6 August 2021, the Court ordered Tuatapere Saleyards Co Limited be placed into liquidation and appointed Mr Iain Nellies as liquidator, with the order timed to commence at 4:00 pm on 29 September 2021; the scheduled telephone conference was vacated.
21 Nov 2019

SCHIERNING v AIREDALE ADVENTURES LIMITED [2019] NZHC 3055

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3055
Court

High Court

Because the applicant succeeded in sustaining the caveat by consent and the respondent assumed the risk of inciting proceedings by applying to lapse the caveat, costs follow the event and are awarded to the applicant on a 2B basis with disbursements fixed by the Registrar.
14 Jun 2018

ILES v Z [2018] NZHC 1396

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1396
Court

High Court

The statement of claim was struck out because it disclosed no tenable cause of action, failed to meet the strict pleading and evidential requirements for allegations of fraud or for leave to bring a private prosecution, was undermined by material inconsistencies, delay and lack of fresh cogent evidence, and amounted to an abuse of process; no opportunity to re-plead was warranted given the credibility concerns and prejudice to respondents.
21 Dec 2017

YOUNG & ANOR v ZHANG [2017] NZCA 622

Citation

[2017] NZCA 622
Court

Court of Appeal

The consent order was valid and binding; appellants' claims of illness, misunderstanding and procedural defects were rejected as not credible or immaterial; although the contempt finding arose by reason of appellant Ying's actions resulting in breach of the consent order (criminal contempt), any procedural deficiency in warning about self-incrimination did not produce a miscarriage of justice because contempt would have been established without her testimony; the fine imposed was excessive and reduced from NZD 10,000 to NZD 7,500.