New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interim restraining orders

Legal area

Court

8 Feb 2018

W (SC 120/2017) v THE FAMILY COURT AT NORTH SHORE [2018] NZSC 10

Citation

[2018] NZSC 10
Court

Supreme Court

The application for leave was dismissed because the case was an application for an extension of time governed by established principles (Almond v Read), the Court of Appeal correctly found the delay was fatal and the proposed appeal was without merit and raised no matter of public or general importance nor any real risk of miscarriage of justice; nothing showed error in the Court of Appeal's analysis.
17 Mar 2017

W (SC156/2016) v THE FAMILY COURT AT NORTH SHORE [2017] NZSC 35

Citation

(2017) 31 FRNZ 204
Court

Supreme Court

The application for an extension of time to appeal is dismissed because no adequate explanation for the lengthy delay was provided and there are no exceptional circumstances to permit a direct appeal; additionally, s88 of the CYF Act must be read as creating an interim order that lapses on determination, and the decision that the interim order had lapsed was a procedural declaration that did not breach natural justice or affect substantive rights requiring relief.
9 Oct 2014

W v THE FAMILY COURT AT NORTH SHORE [2014] NZHC 2483

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2483
Court

High Court

The interim restraining order under s 88 of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 is temporary and lapses upon determination of the s 67 declaration; therefore Judge Druce correctly concluded he lacked jurisdiction to discharge an order that had already lapsed and there was no breach of natural justice or legitimate expectation warranting relief.
18 Apr 2012

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE V DOTCOM HC AK CIV-2012-404-33

Citation

openlaw-d7292269_dea7_4599_8026_6054dc691269.pdf
Court

High Court

The Commissioner was duly authorised via lawful delegation of the Attorney-General's function; the High Court's role under s56 is confined to being satisfied the foreign restraining orders are in force in the foreign jurisdiction and, if so, it must register them; the Court will not review the Attorney-General's delegate's substantive satisfaction under s54(2) in this registration process; accordingly the two US restraining orders were registrable and are ordered registered subject to specified conditions.
30 Oct 2007

COMPASS CAPITAL LIMITED AND ANOR V UCTA FINANCE LIMITED AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2007-404-006506

Citation

openlaw-60e75526_e105_4a1d_adcf_9e6f393c9607.pdf
Court

High Court

The interim restraining orders made on 24 October 2007 were continued until 5 November 2007 because the first plaintiff's undertaking as to damages, supported by its filed financial statement showing a surplus of $310,017 as at June 2007, was sufficient to cover the likely short-term loss (interest) to defendants and the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo; it was unnecessary to decide whether a receiver can be personally bound by a receivership company's undertaking under s 30 of the Receivership Act 1993.

New Zealand Case Law

W (SC 120/2017) v THE FAMILY COURT AT NORTH SHORE [2018] NZSC 10

W (SC156/2016) v THE FAMILY COURT AT NORTH SHORE [2017] NZSC 35

W v THE FAMILY COURT AT NORTH SHORE [2014] NZHC 2483

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE V DOTCOM HC AK CIV-2012-404-33

COMPASS CAPITAL LIMITED AND ANOR V UCTA FINANCE LIMITED AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2007-404-006506