New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Enforcement of foreign judgments

Legal area

Court

25 May 2022

ALMARZOOQI v SALIH [2022] NZHC 1170

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1170
Court

High Court

Court concluded the proper law of the Nikah was UAE; under UAE Personal Status Law the deferred Mahr of 500,000 AED became payable on divorce effective 1 November 2016; defendant breached the contractual obligation by not paying; plaintiff entitled to judgment for the deferred Mahr converted to NZD at the 1 November 2016 exchange rate and interest under the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016; public policy argument to reduce the quantum failed.
18 Feb 2022

YAO v SHEN & ANOR [2022] NZHC 221

Citation

[2022] NZHC 221
Court

High Court

Because the plaintiff is resident outside New Zealand and the enforcement of any costs award abroad is costly and uncertain, and the plaintiff failed to engage after her solicitors withdrew, it was just to order security for costs. The appropriate quantum was NZD 40,000 payable as a lump sum to the Registrar by the specified date, the proceedings were stayed until paid, and confidentiality/suppression orders were justified for the Management Agreement given its commercial sensitivity and limited disclosure already to the plaintiff.
23 Nov 2021

RAHLA HUSSEIN AMIN HARDER ALMARZOOQI v RAFID MOHAMMED SALIH [2021] NZSC 161 [23 November 2021]

Citation

[2021] NZFLR 606
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal because existing New Zealand law does not recognise the jurisdiction of a foreign court over a non-resident for enforcement of ancillary matrimonial financial orders on the basis of reciprocity; the limited recognition in matrimonial matters applies to the status of the marriage, not to enforcement of the Mahr; there was no miscarriage of justice and any broader change to the law is better achieved by international agreement than by this Court.
1 Jul 2020

FOREST HOLDINGS (NZ) LIMITED v SHEUNG [2020] NZHC 1529

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1529
Court

High Court

The Court held the written JV Agreement never had legal effect because clause 2.1 tied commencement to both execution and cleared payment, the executed document post‑dated the specified date without lawful alteration, and no valid written variation was pleaded or proved. Further, even if the JV had been effective, there was no clear contractual obligation by Sheung to pay the $1,170,000 directly to Forest Holdings and the alleged 2018 variation failed the agreement's formal variation requirement. Accordingly formal proof failed and the claim against Sheung was dismissed.
10 Jun 2020

QINGDAO ZOONO BIOTECH CO LTD v ZOONO LTD [2020] NZHC 1282

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1282
Court

High Court

The Court found the r 5.45 threshold met for Qingdao (overseas SPV) and that surrounding circumstances credibly demonstrated Qingdao's inability to pay full estimated costs and difficulty enforcing a costs order in China; balancing impecuniosity, limited prospects of success and access to justice, the Court exercised its discretion to order Qingdao to provide NZ$35,000 security for costs in staged payments and stayed the proceedings until payment; the cross-application for security against ZGL was dismissed because ZGL has substantial NZ assets and enforcement in New Zealand/Australia is prac…
10 Jul 2019

HAWAIKI SUBMARINE CABLE LP v TONGA CABLE LTD & OR [2019] NZHC 1595

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1595
Court

High Court

Because the guarantee is an accessory to the HOA and is intimately linked to it, the court inferred the parties intended New Zealand law to govern the guarantee (doctrine of infection), therefore service outside New Zealand was valid under r6.27(2)(b)(iv); having regard to choice of law, enforceability in Tonga under the Crown Proceedings Act and relevant authorities, New Zealand is the appropriate forum and the defendants' protest to jurisdiction is set aside.
28 Apr 2017

RICHARD OWEN JOHNSON v TAMARIE ELLIS JOHNSON [2017] NZCA 147

Citation

[2017] 3 NZLR 435
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the High Court had jurisdiction under the Property (Relationships) Act and the appellant had submitted to that jurisdiction by participating and consenting to transfer; the prior Oregon judgment was procured by the appellant's deliberate and material misrepresentations to the Oregon court and therefore cannot found issue estoppel or require deference; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and costs were awarded against the appellant.
9 Nov 2016

DK KELSEY LIMITED v MATAKANA 2008 LIMITED [2016] NZHC 2634

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2634
Court

High Court

Security for costs was ordered because there was reason to believe the plaintiff would be unable to pay defendants' costs and the defendants face a real risk of a barren costs order given the Brandts' residence in South Africa, refusal to guarantee costs and the company's non‑compliance with Companies Act requirements. Balancing the competing considerations, the court fixed security at NZD 22,000 to be paid into court, allowed the plaintiff to use funds held in its solicitors' trust account for that purpose, stayed the proceeding until the security was paid and the company had appointed a NZ…
19 Apr 2016

BURDEN v DIXIE CUMMINGS NZ LTD [2016] NZHC 729

Citation

[2016] NZHC 729
Court

High Court

Security for costs was ordered because plaintiffs were resident overseas, the evidence indicated an unwillingness to pay (including an unpaid Irish costs order) and enforcement against overseas entities raised practical difficulties; having found prima facie merits but not sufficient to displace security, the Court exercised its discretion to order staged security of NZD 75,000 for the copyright proceeding and NZD 50,000 for the trade mark proceeding, with non-payment resulting in a stay of the relevant proceeding and costs to the applicant on a 2B basis.
21 Aug 2014

SCHUMACHER v SUMMERGROVE ESTATES LIMITED CA659/2013 [2014] NZCA 412

Citation

[2014] 3 NZLR 599
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that the constructive trust claim concerns immovable property in Ireland and is governed by Irish law (lex situs); Ireland is the forum with the most real and substantial connection and the appropriate forum for trial, so the New Zealand proceedings should not continue; the appeal was dismissed.