New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Extraterritorial application of statute

Legal area

Court

12 Aug 2015

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT v SWASTIK SOLUTION LIMITED [2015] NZHC 1913

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1913
Court

High Court

Leave to commence under r19.5 was granted and urgent interim injunctions were issued because MBIE demonstrated a serious question to be tried that Swastik's NZ‑registered domain and near‑identical website amounted to misleading or deceptive conduct under s9 Fair Trading Act and likely copyright infringement under s16 of the Copyright Act, the Court has jurisdiction under s3(1) to grant relief, and the balance of convenience and overall interests of justice (including inadequacy of damages) strongly favored interlocutory relief including removal/locking of the domain for 180 days.
13 Aug 2014

LM v R [2014] NZSC 110

Citation

[2014] NZSC 110
Court

Supreme Court

Section 144A cannot be straightforwardly construed to impose party liability where the principal offender is not a New Zealander because the statutory wording does not clearly extend extraterritorial scope to non-New Zealand principals; however on the facts the appellant committed the substantive offence as a principal (took and directed the indecent photograph) and therefore the conviction is sustainable and the appeal is dismissed.
12 Oct 2011

COMMERCE COMMISSION V DEUTSCHE BAHN AG & ORS HC AK CIV-2010-404-005479

Citation

openlaw-1839752e_e38e_4606_8526_59803306e9a2.pdf
Court

High Court

The court held that s27(1) claims based on entry into agreements overseas against Kuehne + Nagel must be dismissed because Kuehne + Nagel did not carry on business in New Zealand and s4(1) does not extend the Act to such overseas entry; however the Commission established a good arguable case under r6.29(1)(a) that s27(2) claims (giving effect to provisions) for specified agreements could be attributed to the parent under s90(2)(b) because there was plausible evidence the New Zealand subsidiary implemented the surcharges at the direction or with the consent of group agents, so the court assume…

New Zealand Case Law

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT v SWASTIK SOLUTION LIMITED [2015] NZHC 1913

LM v R [2014] NZSC 110

COMMERCE COMMISSION V DEUTSCHE BAHN AG & ORS HC AK CIV-2010-404-005479