13 Dec 2023
The High Court lacked jurisdiction over the substantive subject matter so the plaintiff failed on the application; the defendant's claimed costs corresponded to Category 2, band B schedule items or by analogy and were reasonable; therefore, applying the presumption in r 14.2(1)(a) and without any justification for departure, the defendant is entitled to costs of $4,780.
7 Dec 2023
Satori was unable to pay its debts within the meaning of the Companies Act, the High Court of New Zealand was the appropriate forum to appoint a liquidator of a New Zealand company, the appellant lacked standing and failed to show an arguable case of solvency or other legitimate interest to restrain or stay the liquidation, and therefore the liquidation order was properly made; interim relief and applications to adduce further evidence on appeal were rightly refused and the appeal was dismissed.
30 Nov 2023
The intellectual property claims are prima facie 'in connection with' the contracts and therefore fall within the broadly worded arbitration clause; consequently the proceedings against Supermega must be stayed and referred to arbitration under Article 8(1) Schedule 1 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The proceedings against Megadairy are stayed as well to prevent duplicative and conflicting litigation under r 15.1(3) High Court Rules 2016 and the Court's inherent jurisdiction. The defendants' urgent opposition to interim relief did not constitute a submission to jurisdiction that defeats the arbi…
18 Oct 2023
Because there was an identifiable fund likely to be in dispute, credible evidential grounds to suspect breach of trustee duties and possible undue influence, urgency with imminent settlement and a short preservation period, the court properly exercised its discretion to grant a without‑notice preservation order for two months while preserving respondents' ability to apply to set aside.
11 Oct 2023
Court found there is a serious question to be tried that Mr Williams was involved in and facilitated The Right Fit's use of Vision PT confidential and copyrighted materials; balance of convenience favoured plaintiffs because injunction is narrowly tailored and limited harm to plaintiffs would otherwise be irreparable; conditional interim injunction granted restraining disclosure, copying and solicitation and, on payment of NZD 15,000 security, restraining Mr Williams' involvement with The Right Fit; consent orders made against second and third defendants; plaintiffs to provide security to sup…
10 Oct 2023
Applicants awarded costs on category 3 basis with specified reductions to claimed interlocutory time bands; a 25% uplift under r 14.6 was justified due to (1) respondent affidavit evidence creating an unnecessary factual dispute that increased time and expense and (2) the public importance/Bill of Rights implications affecting a disadvantaged group; indemnity costs were refused and legal aid payments operate as a ceiling on recoverable amounts.
28 Sept 2023
Costs awarded to the first defendant in the sum of $5,019.00. The court applied Schedule 3 allocations, held that affidavit preparation is included in step 23, disallowed claims for an unfiled statement of defence and for a case management conference where none occurred, and allowed 0.6 days for filing fee opposition and 1.5 days for preparation of submissions given the application was withdrawn five days before the hearing.
27 Sept 2023
The Court awarded 2B scale costs and disbursements to the FMA in the amount of $13,613.50, rejecting an uplift and declining to treat the interlocutory application as a success for costs because parties reached interim accommodation and the late expansion of grounds did not cause unnecessary additional expense.
23 Aug 2023
Interim orders were refused because, in light of the Cabinet decision, the statutory Gazetting and 28‑day transitional timings and agreed transitional sale periods, the applicants no longer demonstrated a position to preserve that could not be protected by an expedited substantive hearing; on balance of convenience interim relief was not justified despite arguable substantive issues.
22 Aug 2023
The stay and broad interim injunctive relief were refused because the orders sought were non‑executory or ambiguous, would disrupt the existing status quo in which PTL has acted as administrator for over two years, risked substantial prejudice to other beneficiaries, and were not narrowly tailored to identifiable actions warranting restraint; accordingly PTL must be allowed to continue acting as administrator pending appeal.