7 Mar 2023
The Court awarded the plaintiff 2B scale costs with a 75% uplift, declined to award indemnity costs because there was insufficient basis to find vindictive or deliberately frustrating conduct, and held the plaintiff was entitled to recover costs for the variation application and the private investigator but not the costs of second counsel.
15 Mar 2022
Although r 7.48 may provide jurisdiction in some circumstances to enforce interlocutory orders against funds in a separate proceeding, the Court will decline to do so where the proceedings are not closely interrelated and the applicant lacks a sufficient connection to the funds; on these facts the Meredith Connell parties were not parties to the 2150 proceeding and the Court should not exercise its discretion to order payment of the funds to them, so the application is dismissed.
30 Jun 2017
Because the first defendant wilfully defaulted on the interlocutory injunction and related orders, engaged in deliberate steps to evade enforcement and caused substantial prejudice to the plaintiff while the plaintiff demonstrated a strong prima facie case of infringement and breach of confidence, the court was justified under High Court Rule 7.48 in striking out the defendant's defence and awarding costs.
22 Apr 2016
The stay was declined because the defendants' financial evidence was incomplete, inconsistent and lacked credibility; the plaintiff provided an undertaking as to damages and demonstrated potential irreparable harm if the injunction were stayed; allegations of defendants' breaches of the injunction further undermined their case; on balance of convenience and overall justice the interim injunction should remain in force.
21 Aug 2009
The court held that the plaintiffs' concerns about incomplete and unexplained disclosures were well founded, that the enduring power of attorney remained operative and enabled the attorney to obtain and disclose the principal's financial information, and that the requirements of r32.5(5) were satisfied; accordingly the court granted orders compelling further detailed disclosure by the first defendant both of his own affairs (including trust assets and sale proceeds) and, acting as attorney, of the assets and bank transactions of the second defendant to the extent specified.
27 Aug 2007
The High Court has jurisdiction under s85(2) to enforce Maori Land Court injunctions; the respondent breached a clear injunction beyond reasonable doubt; accordingly the Court will issue the Writ of Arrest, have the respondent arrested and held briefly as part of contempt proceedings, and will refer any order for removal of the house to the Maori Land Court for consent while reserving costs.