New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Enforcement of judgments

Legal area

Court

13 Apr 2022

SHARMA v WATI [2022] NZHC 772

Citation

[2022] NZHC 772
Court

High Court

Recall refused: counsel's failure to draw a relevant factual matter to the court did not justify disturbing the minute because the distribution order had been acted upon and proceeds distributed, finality of litigation and available enforcement remedies for earlier orders make recall inappropriate; no special reason in the interests of justice was established and the proper remedy is enforcement of the extant Family Court/High Court orders regarding other relationship property.
18 Mar 2016

WEAVER & ANDERSON v HML NOMINEES LIMITED & ORS [2016] NZHC 476

Citation

[2016] NZHC 476
Court

High Court

The settlement between the plaintiffs and HML did not constitute satisfaction of the stone cladding award as against the Council because the agreement expressly reserved the plaintiffs' rights to enforce the judgment against the Council and the payments made were for specified items (general damages and contribution relating to abandoned appeal issues), not an objective full and final satisfaction of the stone cladding loss; therefore enforcement against the Council will not lead to excessive recovery and the Council's application is dismissed.
13 Jul 2012

TGR HELICORP LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) V ROGERS HC AK CIV-2008-404-4109

Citation

openlaw-779f01da_9643_4e1b_bed3_2fb957ad4196.pdf
Court

High Court

Defendants are not entitled to be heard on substantive matters because they were validly debarred after a full hearing including representation and cross-examination; leave granted at a conference with the Official Assignee preserved plaintiffs' right to pursue costs against the bankrupt defendants; on that basis indemnity costs are awarded in the specified amounts and plaintiffs are entitled to further reasonable costs and disbursements incurred after 12 December 2011.
4 May 2012

WELLS V VERISURE INVESTIGATIONS LIMITED HC AK CIV-2012-404-0660

Citation

openlaw-cfbd6de1_d2f0_4736_8288_181f71b978f9.pdf
Court

High Court

The application to permit a non-lawyer (Ms Haden) to represent the defendant company was refused because the binding rule from Re G J Mannix Ltd requires companies to be represented by qualified legal practitioners; the applicant’s police prosecution experience, alleged public interest, and inability to pay counsel do not constitute exceptions to that rule.
11 Aug 2010

WESTPAC NZ LTD V D I WRIGHT HC AK CIV-2010-404-001023

Citation

openlaw-5f73f711_76a8_4cac_a8fe_772e502c7774.pdf
Court

High Court

Courts cannot grant a prospective money judgment for contractual interest that falls due after the date of judgment; however contractual provisions for interest after judgment may be enforced by equitable orders (specific performance) which are prospective and may be made subject to terms permitting variation or discharge to address future changes, and such orders can be enforced under rules equating orders with judgments.
31 Mar 2010

H V DE ALWIS AND ORS V A N CHEAN HC AK CIV 2007-404-005357

Citation

openlaw-f12e3ab2_44b4_463f_9ce9_44025b5cdd60.pdf
Court

High Court

Because judgment in favour of Mr Wee was sealed and an interim charging order obtained, and the balance of justice favoured enforcement, the Court varied the asset preservation order to exclude moneys charged to Mr Wee, rescinded the prior variation allowing a living allowance, made the interim charging order final, ordered delivery of the charged moneys to Mr Wee but deferred payment until final determination of Mrs Chean's Supreme Court leave application and any set‑aside proceedings, refused the stay of the Court of Appeal judgment, and awarded costs to Mr Wee.
3 Jul 2009

CUTHBERT V HUMPHRIES AND ORS HC AK CIV-2003-404-7071

Citation

openlaw-3c31d3b3_0662_4608_857b_d9c6298a45ff.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court declined to enter a new money judgment 'on a judgment' because doing so would alter the character of the existing consent orders and could affect the ability to set them aside; instead the appropriate relief is declaratory: the Court declared the first defendant owes $180,000 under clauses 4(e) and 8 and the second defendant (the trusts) owes $180,000 under clauses 4(e) and 9, leaving any substantive challenges to be pursued by application to set aside or vary the consent orders.

New Zealand Case Law

SHARMA v WATI [2022] NZHC 772

WEAVER & ANDERSON v HML NOMINEES LIMITED & ORS [2016] NZHC 476

TGR HELICORP LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) V ROGERS HC AK CIV-2008-404-4109

WELLS V VERISURE INVESTIGATIONS LIMITED HC AK CIV-2012-404-0660

WESTPAC NZ LTD V D I WRIGHT HC AK CIV-2010-404-001023

H V DE ALWIS AND ORS V A N CHEAN HC AK CIV 2007-404-005357

CUTHBERT V HUMPHRIES AND ORS HC AK CIV-2003-404-7071