New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Forum conveniens

Legal area

Court

17 Feb 2023

ISLAND GRACE (FIJI) LTD (IN REC AND IN LIQ) v SATORI HOLDINGS LIMITED (IN INTERIM LIQ [2023] NZHC 219

Citation

[2023] NZHC 219
Court

High Court

On the material before the Court Satori was shown to be insolvent on both cash‑flow and balance‑sheet bases and had no viable arguable defence sufficient to meet the threshold for leave to file a late defence; New Zealand courts have statutory jurisdiction and are the appropriate forum; it was just and equitable to place Satori into liquidation and to appoint liquidators, and the shareholder's interlocutory applications and protest to jurisdiction were dismissed.
23 Jan 2023

WHYTE v THE A2 MILK COMPANY LIMITED [2023] NZHC 22

Citation

[2023] NZHC 22
Court

High Court

The Court found the Supreme Court of Victoria has jurisdiction to determine the matters (including New Zealand law claims) and, on balance of the s 24(2) factors — principally the existence of a substantially similar, first-in-time consolidated Australian proceeding and the risk of duplication and inconsistent judgments — the Australian court is the more appropriate forum; accordingly the NZ proceeding is stayed pending judgment on liability or final settlement of the Australian proceeding, with leave to apply to lift the stay if material circumstances change; leave to commence the representa…
13 Sept 2021

BANK OF NEW ZEALAND v DAVEY [2021] NZHC 2390

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2390
Court

High Court

Leave was granted because the BNZ established a real and substantial connection to New Zealand, there was a serious issue to be tried given an unappealed substantial judgment, New Zealand was the appropriate forum, there had been no delay, and the debtor had practically accepted service via a New Zealand solicitor; accordingly orders in terms of the BNZ's application were made.
26 Feb 2021

ADAMA NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v RAAM CHEM PTE LIMITED [2021] NZHC 315

Citation

[2021] NZHC 315
Court

High Court

The settlement of the primary claim between Adama and Raam removed the principal factors that had previously supported assuming jurisdiction in New Zealand (notably concurrent litigation of core facts and procedural consistency); on the rehearing Raam no longer established that New Zealand was the appropriate forum under r 6.28(5)(c) and therefore failed the r 6.29 test, so UPL's protest to jurisdiction must stand and the third party claim against UPL is dismissed.
2 Nov 2020

LU v INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED [2020] NZCA 538

Citation

[2020] NZCA 538
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court refused leave to adduce further evidence because the proffered material was irrelevant; refused extension of time because the delay was moderately long, inadequately explained, and compounded by the applicants' abusive conduct in filing duplicative proceedings, and because the proposed appeal was plainly hopeless; consequently applications for stays were declined and respondents awarded costs.
22 Sept 2020

GLENN WILLIAM SCHAEFFER v JAMES JOSEPH MURREN [2020] NZSC 98

Citation

[2020] NZSC 98
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal dismissed because the proposed ground that the High Court was required to apply Nevada law despite no pleading or proof of foreign law lacked merit under established conflict-of-laws principles that require pleading and proof of foreign law and default to domestic law; the other grounds were fact-specific and would not alter the outcome given the negligent misstatement finding would remain.
29 May 2020

ADAMA NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v RAAM CHEM PTE LIMITED [2020] NZHC 1163

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1163
Court

High Court

On balance New Zealand was the appropriate forum for Raam's third party claim against UPL because the loss arose in New Zealand, Adama's primary claim against Raam is to be tried here and core factual issues overlap, consistency and practical ability to present New Zealand witness evidence favor a single forum, Raam established a real and substantial connection and a serious issue to be tried, and therefore UPL's appearance under protest was set aside and it must file a defence in New Zealand.
17 Mar 2020

PATERSON v LEPIONKA & COMPANY INVESTMENTS LIMITED [2020] NZHC 530

Citation

[2020] NZHC 530
Court

High Court

The plaintiff was entitled to commence the proceeding in Napier because he resides in Hawkes Bay when in New Zealand and material parts of the causes of action arose in Hawkes Bay; the defendants' convenience and related litigation factors did not outweigh that entitlement, so the application to transfer venue was declined and interlocutory applications ordered to be set down promptly.
5 Dec 2019

CHRISTIE AND ANOR v FOSTER [2019] NZCA 623

Citation

[2019] NZCA 623
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the High Court erred in concluding only New Zealand had jurisdiction: the Moçambique rule does not operate 'both ways' to oust Irish jurisdiction in the circumstances and the respondent's equitable claims (proprietary estoppel and institutional constructive trust) fall within established in personam and administration-of-estate exceptions such that an Irish court could grant effective relief via control of Irish executors; the undue influence pleading could not set aside the severance given indefeasibility and lack of unconscionable conduct by the registered proprietor; overall…
21 May 2019

HEMI v TYLER [2019] NZHC 1114

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1114
Court

High Court

Because service was validly effected within New Zealand and the allegations concern conduct by the defendant as director/shareholder of a New Zealand company and the defendant resides in New Zealand, the Court had jurisdiction; where service is within New Zealand the dispute is decided by applying the forum conveniens test and on that test New Zealand was the appropriate forum; accordingly the defendant's appearance under protest was set aside and he was ordered to file a defence.