New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Mandatory injunctions

Legal area

Court

22 Jun 2018

DOUGIAMAS v 123 INTERNET LIMITED [2018] NZHC 1521

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1521
Court

High Court

Defendants' continued use of the MOODLE mark, related company name and domain names without licence and in a way likely to cause confusion amounted to misleading and deceptive conduct under the FTA and passing off; Mr Benner applied to register the MOODLE trade mark in New Zealand in circumstances amounting to bad faith (opportunistic application immediately after lapse and knowledge of prior rights); accordingly the defendant registration is invalid and equitable and statutory relief including injunctions and mandatory transfer of domains and an enquiry for profits or damages is appropriate.
18 Jul 2016

BODY CORPORATE 185696 v BODY CORPORATE ADMINISTRATION LTD [2016] NZHC 1614

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1614
Court

High Court

BCA's repeated failure to identify and deliver all of the Body Corporate's records over two months, continuing after proceedings were issued and despite warnings, constituted flagrant, improper and unnecessary conduct in defending the proceeding; this satisfied r 14.6(4)(a) (and r 14.6(4)(f) as a residual basis) and the Bradbury factors, warranting an award of indemnity costs to the applicant.
21 Aug 2014

RETAIL FOCUS GROUP LIMITED v FORSGREN NZ LIMITED [2014] NZHC 1984

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1984
Court

High Court

The interim mandatory injunction was refused because it would compel continuation of a close, trust‑based commercial relationship in which trust and cooperation had broken down; specific performance was unlikely to be available at trial and damages were an adequate remedy so the balance of convenience and overall justice favoured refusing interim relief.
15 Mar 2010

EFFECTIVE ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOR V ECOCOVER LIMITED AND ANOR HC ROT CIV-2009-404-005331

Citation

openlaw-839925f0_84d3_4f86_9bc3_5d561718a62b.pdf
Court

High Court

The application to transfer was refused because, although the counterclaim exceeded the District Court monetary limit, the underlying factual and legal issues were straightforward and suitable for determination in the District Court; transfer would likely increase delay given High Court fixture backlogs and there were no public interest or complexity factors sufficient to justify exercising the discretion to transfer or to enlarge time.
9 May 2008

ANGLESEA MEDICAL PROPERTIES LTD V BRAEMAR HOSPITAL LTD HC HAM CIV 2006-419-1492

Citation

openlaw-8da7bdf7_11b0_4ec1_9e12_a22849043aef.pdf
Court

High Court

The plaintiff was entitled under clause 19.2(b) of the lease to seek legal costs because it acted in good faith and reasonably in issuing the breach notice to minimise regulatory risk; however the quantum of claimed costs must be tested for objective reasonableness, so the Court granted interim relief requiring detailed narration of bills and set a timetable for objection and final ruling; the defendant's cross-application for its own costs was declined.
7 Mar 2008

GREAT BARRIER AIRLINES FLIGHT OPERATIONS LTD V GREAT BARRIER AIR LTD AND ORS HC AK CIV 2007-404-5710

Citation

openlaw-01b5c31f_d59f_4088_977f_ab8c3896ce0e.pdf
Court

High Court

Respondents failed to produce a concrete automated monitoring proposal and provided no evidence of improper interference by the appellant; accordingly the court approved consent orders requiring Telecom to implement an automated inquiry-and-diversion system (with shared costs) until paper directories without the listing are delivered, and recorded that paragraphs of the affidavit adopting counsel's memoranda were improper and would have been struck out if contested.

New Zealand Case Law

DOUGIAMAS v 123 INTERNET LIMITED [2018] NZHC 1521

BODY CORPORATE 185696 v BODY CORPORATE ADMINISTRATION LTD [2016] NZHC 1614

RETAIL FOCUS GROUP LIMITED v FORSGREN NZ LIMITED [2014] NZHC 1984

EFFECTIVE ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOR V ECOCOVER LIMITED AND ANOR HC ROT CIV-2009-404-005331

ANGLESEA MEDICAL PROPERTIES LTD V BRAEMAR HOSPITAL LTD HC HAM CIV 2006-419-1492

GREAT BARRIER AIRLINES FLIGHT OPERATIONS LTD V GREAT BARRIER AIR LTD AND ORS HC AK CIV 2007-404-5710