New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Judicature amendment act s8

Legal area

Court

22 Feb 2017

SPARK NEW ZEALAND TRADING LIMITED v COMMERCE COMMISSION [2017] NZHC 238

Citation

[2017] NZHC 238
Court

High Court

The Court has jurisdiction under s 8(1)(a) of the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 to make an interim order prohibiting respondents from relying on a Commerce Commission clearance to complete a transaction where doing so would render any subsequent judicial review nugatory; applying the balance of convenience and public interest, a short tailored stay (until midnight on the third day after delivery of reasons) was necessary to preserve applicants' ability to seek meaningful judicial review and was therefore granted.
30 Oct 2013

SHAPKIN v MCCUTCHEON [2013] NZHC 2864

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2864
Court

High Court

The application for interim relief was refused because the University’s internal disciplinary process should be allowed to proceed, the applicant had not established a basis for urgent court intervention, and the Court will not make declarations in the absence of established facts; the substantive proceeding was adjourned pending the disciplinary process.
20 Jul 2011

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE V MOTOR DEALERS LIMITED HC AK CIV 2010-404-000331

Citation

openlaw-983ab656_febf_4044_94fd_f765f6b4c1bb.pdf
Court

High Court

The Associate Judge declined to grant the substantive stay but refused to strike out MDL's applications; he adjourned the stay applications and ordered that they be dismissed on 26 August 2011 unless MDL filed and served an application for interim relief under s8 of the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 by 19 August 2011; costs reserved. The appropriate route for challenging refusal of late objections is judicial review in the Review Court, and parties seeking to delay insolvency enforcement must obtain interim relief from that Court rather than expect Associate Judges to suspend commercial proce…
19 Nov 2010

POHOIKURA WAITOA LOGGING LIMITED V THE NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY HC GIS CIV 2010-416-277

Citation

openlaw-49c76810_fefc_4867_b547_57584279b567.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court exercised its power under s8(1)(c) of the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 to declare the licence continues in force pending further order because the potential irreparable harm to the company justified preservation, provided appropriate conditions (new certificates of fitness and random inspections) were imposed to mitigate public safety risks; the balance of private and public interests thus justified interim relief until further consideration after the District Court reserved judgment is available.
16 Aug 2010

TAYLOR V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS CA CA165/2010

Citation

openlaw-7866786d_7646_45c8_ac0a_79580a04912e.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that although s 8 permits declaratory interim relief, the discretionary factors—absence of any enforceable licence or entitlement to the monthly contact visits, the paramount need for prison security and manager discretion under the Corrections Act, the MSD's responsibility for the child's welfare, the risk of long delay and prejudice to effective administration, and the impracticality of mandating positive operational steps—weighed against granting the mandatory interim relief sought; accordingly the appeal was dismissed and interim relief refused.
26 Feb 2010

EASTON V WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL SC 99/2009

Citation

SC 99/2009
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the lower courts correctly held interim relief was inappropriate and unnecessary as the applicant was not prejudiced due to available statutory appeals and the proceedings were premature; further, ordering security for costs was within the Court of Appeal's discretion given the applicant's impecuniosity and the weak prospects of success, and no public importance justified granting leave.
25 Mar 2009

DORBU V DISTRICT COURT AUCKLAND (TENANCY TRIBUNAL DIVISION) AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2008-404-7398

Citation

openlaw-d59a6c61_abaa_438d_b327_4c9efb56a551.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court dismissed the interim application for want of jurisdiction because s8 of the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 does not authorize mandatory orders (such as an order to vacate) or the granting of judgments in debt; the tenants had already vacated and the outstanding rent claim must be pursued in another forum, not by interim review under s8.

New Zealand Case Law

SPARK NEW ZEALAND TRADING LIMITED v COMMERCE COMMISSION [2017] NZHC 238

SHAPKIN v MCCUTCHEON [2013] NZHC 2864

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE V MOTOR DEALERS LIMITED HC AK CIV 2010-404-000331

POHOIKURA WAITOA LOGGING LIMITED V THE NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY HC GIS CIV 2010-416-277

TAYLOR V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS CA CA165/2010

EASTON V WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL SC 99/2009

DORBU V DISTRICT COURT AUCKLAND (TENANCY TRIBUNAL DIVISION) AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2008-404-7398