New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Leave to serve

Legal area

Court

7 Jun 2022

HEARTLAND BANK LTD v WILFRED [2022] NZHC 1328

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1328
Court

High Court

Court granted leave to serve the bankruptcy notice outside New Zealand under r 6.30 because Heartland and the debtor have sufficient connections to New Zealand and it is appropriate to do so; personal service was dispensed with and substituted service ordered under r 6.8 because reasonable efforts to effect personal service had been made, the notice could not be promptly served, and the proposed methods (email to debtor's solicitor and last known email, and personal delivery to husband with accompanying solicitor's letter) were likely to bring the notice to the debtor's attention.
25 May 2022

PACIFIC PLUMBING SERVICES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v MATTHEW ARCHIBALD [2022] NZHC 1163

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1163
Court

High Court

Because judgment had already been entered in New Zealand and the debt arose from the plaintiff's New Zealand business, the Court exercised its discretion under r6.30 and s17 to grant leave to serve the bankruptcy notice and, if necessary, the originating documents overseas; the compliance period was extended to 20 working days and leave was made conditional on service within six months.
21 Mar 2022

SOUTHPAC 2015 LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v DZIAMSKA [2022] NZHC 530

Citation

[2022] NZHC 530
Court

High Court

Given the debtor's New Zealand property, the debt's accrual in New Zealand and the prior New Zealand judgment, the Court found a real and substantial connection and granted retrospective leave under the High Court Rules to serve the bankruptcy notice and related adjudication documents outside New Zealand; substituted service by leaving documents at the property, service on a neighbour and Facebook Messenger was authorised; the period for compliance under s17(4) was set at 10 working days; costs reserved.
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.
19 Dec 2013

EXPORTRADE CORPORATION v IRIE BLUE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED CA784/2012 [2013] NZCA 675

Citation

(2013) 21 PRNZ 680
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that substituted service on an overseas defendant is not inherently invalid and is permissible where a jurisdictional gateway in r6.27(2) is met or where leave under r6.28/r6.29 can be granted or excused; accordingly the High Court had jurisdiction over Mr Gribble. Although Barbados was prima facie the appropriate forum, special circumstances (prolonged NZ litigation, prejudice to plaintiff from delay and limitation risk, defendant's residence and assets in NZ, efficiency of enforcement, proportionality of costs and availability of evidence) meant the trial should proceed in Ne…
5 Nov 2010

WING HUNG PRINTING COMPANY LIMITED AND ORS V SAITO OFFSHORE PTY LTD CA CA437/2009

Citation

openlaw-bb49a0da_26fc_4730_8e49_d6f9bb7c0574.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held r 6.29 requires a two-stage inquiry and that causes of action must be considered individually; the court may assume jurisdiction where one or more causes satisfy r 6.29(1)(a) and may order the plaintiff to amend pleadings to abandon causes that do not meet the tests rather than dismiss the entire proceeding; the 'all or nothing' approach is rejected and the court may grant leave or excuse failure to seek leave under r 6.29(1)(b) where appropriate.
2 Mar 2007

KROMA COLOUR PRINTS LIMITED V ATCO CONTROLS LIMITED HC AK CIV 2004-404-408

Citation

openlaw-96c1deee_44d4_4d06_81cb_741082c03955.pdf
Court

High Court

The High Court Rules rr219-220 permit service out of New Zealand only for documents that initiate a proceeding; an interlocutory joinder application is not a proceeding under r3, so the Rules do not permit service of that interlocutory application on overseas non‑parties; the Associate Judge erred in ordering service and thereby dismissing the application without hearing it on the merits; the joinder application must be heard in the normal way and the orders of Sargisson AJ are set aside.