New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interim injunctive relief

Legal area

Court

22 Jun 2022

STRATFORD v MOSES [2022] NZHC 1463

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1463
Court

High Court

On interlocutory evidence the Court declined to remove or suspend trustee Lynn except to restrain her from exercising the power to appoint or remove trustees without the Court's leave. The Court found no cogent evidence the Trust assets were at immediate risk, noted the protective effect of the appointment of independent trustee David Vance and undertakings already given, and held that removal would amount to a final order inappropriate on contested interlocutory evidence.
9 Sept 2020

DOWNEY MANAGEMENT LIMITED v LAKEWOOD GENERAL PARTNER LIMITED [2020] NZHC 2340

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2340
Court

High Court

There is a serious question to be tried because the proposed removal and administrative resolutions appear inconsistent with the Shareholders Agreement which disapplies s156; the balance of convenience and overall justice favor preserving the status quo to allow completion of the building and normal contract dispute resolution; accordingly an interim injunction was granted in terms of the applicant's draft orders with specific amendments and costs reserved.
29 Nov 2018

AUCKLAND CAMPERVAN LTD v TRAVEL CARS NZ LTD [2018] NZHC 3122

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3122
Court

High Court

The Court found there is a serious question to be tried that Travel Cars' use of a trading name and domain very similar to Auckland Campervan Ltd's name and domain is likely to mislead or deceive customers under s 9 FTA, and that the balance of convenience and overall justice favour granting an interim injunction to restrain the respondent from using the name and domain pending final determination.
16 Jun 2017

HAVEN INSURANCE LTD v LOMBARD [2017] NZHC 1336

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1336
Court

High Court

Because Haven failed to disclose material communications demonstrating that Brown and ASJ denied having signed the alleged written agreement, the court concluded there was inadequate evidential foundation to establish a serious question to be tried that the third and fourth respondents were bound by the contractual confidentiality and non‑solicitation clauses; accordingly paragraphs (c) and (d) of the without‑notice orders against those respondents were rescinded.
24 Sept 2014

ANDERSON v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2014] NZHC 2325

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2325
Court

High Court

Plaintiffs failed on the merits and were pursuing private interests not a genuine public interest; therefore the public interest exception to costs did not apply; defendants were not shown to have acted with significant unreasonableness to justify departure from full costs; costs awarded to defendants on a 2B basis with disbursements, but the claimed expert fee for Cedric Owen Burn was excessive and reduced to $2,000.
16 Mar 2012

TERMINALS (NZ) LTD V COMPTROLLER OF CUSTOMS HC AK CIV 2012-404-1242

Citation

openlaw-42164465_2139_41d2_b133_fd1ebd6a405c.pdf
Court

High Court

Court granted interim relief because TNZ established a strongly arguable case that the dispatch activity is not 'manufacture' under the Act, TNZ's position could not be preserved without interim orders given the risk of substantial retrospective assessments and irretrievable financial harm, and on balance of public and private interests this exceptional case justified restraining assessments pending expedited substantive determination.
25 May 2011

THE NEW ZEALAND PORK INDUSTRY BOARD v THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY HC WN CIV-2011-485-719

Citation

openlaw-01789218_66ec_4393_ac29_eae223314b05.pdf
Court

High Court

The court granted interim restraint because the Board demonstrated a good arguable case that (i) the Director-General delayed and improperly amalgamated the independent panel's findings with subsequent work contrary to s22A(3), (ii) reliance on advice from a CTO who had contributed to the challenged draft standard was arguable procedural impropriety, and (iii) a legitimate expectation of consultation on the decisive EpiX-Analytics report existed; coupled with genuine scientific dispute and rebuttal evidence, those factors made interim orders reasonably necessary to preserve the Board's positi…
24 Sept 2008

BODY CORPORATE 318566 V STRATA TITLE ADMINISTRATION LTD HC AK CIV-2008-404-006294

Citation

openlaw-b8d4c471_e6a7_46a9_9276_01eb39557dec.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court granted interim injunctive relief postponing the extraordinary general meeting because the Committee lacked a full list of proprietors and the balance of convenience favored postponement to ensure adequate notice and fair opportunity to receive material; the postponement was conditional on specific protective measures to preserve interests pending the substantive hearing.
6 Aug 2007

WALLER V WALLER HC TAU CIV 2007-470-599

Citation

openlaw-a355b273_4f4a_486c_9b56_4be8ed662443.pdf
Court

High Court

Because the affidavit material and lodged documents raised a reasonably arguable case that the respondent held the property on constructive or other trust for the applicant and no opposing evidence was advanced, the court was satisfied an interim order preventing the caveat from lapsing until further order was justified.
21 Dec 2005

J H TAMIHERE & ORS V E TAUMAUNU & ORS HC AK CIV 2005-404-6958

Citation

openlaw-10a91ac6_bcc8_4824_9617_372063e5ba1e.pdf
Court

High Court

The Rules vested the Whanau with the right to elect trustees; the AGM validly elected five named plaintiffs (as part of seven elected trustees to fill vacancies up to the Rules' maximum) and the Board had no power under the Rules or law to refuse recognition or to substitute its own appointees; consequently interim injunctive relief ordering recognition and participation was warranted.