27 Aug 2018
Defendant (Mr G) failed to show India is clearly or distinctly the more appropriate forum; High Court has jurisdiction under s126(1)(c) and the children's domicile is New Zealand under Domicile Act s6; weighing connections, welfare considerations and practicalities New Zealand is the appropriate forum, so the application to stay or dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds is dismissed.
2 Sept 2013
The Court must register the foreign restraining order and its amendments if they are in force and the statutory prerequisites are met; once registered the orders have effect as CPR restraining orders and the Court may, under ss34-35 CPR as applied by s134 CPR, make ancillary orders (including sale and payments) necessary to preserve the value of restrained property; NZDT failed to establish it had not unlawfully benefited and so s139 exclusion was refused.
22 Jun 2012
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.
7 Dec 2011
Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal is granted because the statutory interpretation of s 182(1) raised a novel question of law on which the Family Court and the High Court took different approaches, and the matter involves private and potential public importance (trustees and trust assets in New Zealand, enforcement issues) sufficient to justify appeal despite delay and cost; the Court of Appeal should decide whether a New Zealand application under s 182 can be made when the dissolution order was made in Fiji.