New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Pickwick service

Legal area

Court

21 Dec 2022

MINES v LINDSAY [2022] NZHC 3613

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3613
Court

High Court

The plaintiffs established a serious question to be tried that the first and second defendants, as directors, acted in breach of their duties by pursuing self‑interested transactions and dissipating company assets; the balance of convenience favoured preserving company assets and preventing repetition of the conduct pending an on‑notice hearing, so prohibitory interim injunctions were granted on a Pickwick basis with directions for further on‑notice proceedings.
14 Dec 2020

BGT DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED v HEWSON [2020] NZHC 3291

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3291
Court

High Court

The Court held Fenton McFadden was entitled to recover costs for attendances it made as a true non-party in relation to the urgent freezing order matter, but costs incurred in communicating with and taking instructions from the first respondent (i.e. acting as adviser/agent or trustee work) are not non-party costs and must be recovered from the first respondent; the parties were directed to provide a division of costs or the respondent must file a memorandum dividing costs for final determination; no costs were awarded for the application for costs itself due to overreach.
26 Jun 2020

MODA SYSTEMS AMERICA LLC v GUARDIAN BANDSAWS LIMITED [2020] NZHC 1476

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1476
Court

High Court

The Court granted a short-term interim injunction to preserve the status quo until 5 pm on 29 June 2020 because there was a serious issue to be tried and, given the imminent expiry/renewal dispute over the weekend, the balance of convenience favored preservation pending a further hearing; the Court was not satisfied damages would necessarily be adequate but left further consideration for the subsequent hearing.
17 Jul 2019

THE FINANCIAL MARKETS AUTHORITY v FINANCIAL PLANNING LIMITED [2019] NZHC 1675 [17 July 2019]

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1675
Court

High Court

Interim liquidation was ordered because the application demonstrated urgency and reasonable attempts to notify and serve the companies and their director; the director elected not to provide instructions through the solicitor or instruct other counsel, and the Court was satisfied that appointment of interim liquidators was necessary and appropriate on the without-notice record before it.
19 Oct 2007

HELILOGGING HOLDINGS LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) AND ORS V MARK WAYNE FORD AND ANOR HC NWP CIV 2007-443-578

Citation

openlaw-e8b3e63e_0b08_47b7_9661_e018e121dfc5.pdf
Court

High Court

The court granted interlocutory relief directing delivery up of the five specified helicopters and ordered the parties to appoint an agreed expert to determine allocation of mixed parts (with associated log cards) between plaintiffs and defendants; plaintiffs must secure UK parts in safe custody and provide security (bank guarantee or cash) in the sum of US$40,000 before the order takes effect; liberty to apply and costs reserved.

New Zealand Case Law

MINES v LINDSAY [2022] NZHC 3613

BGT DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED v HEWSON [2020] NZHC 3291

MODA SYSTEMS AMERICA LLC v GUARDIAN BANDSAWS LIMITED [2020] NZHC 1476

THE FINANCIAL MARKETS AUTHORITY v FINANCIAL PLANNING LIMITED [2019] NZHC 1675 [17 July 2019]

HELILOGGING HOLDINGS LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) AND ORS V MARK WAYNE FORD AND ANOR HC NWP CIV 2007-443-578