28 Feb 2023
On summary judgment the plaintiff failed to prove as a matter of law that the defendant voluntarily submitted to the Hawaiian Court; it was reasonably arguable the defendant maintained his jurisdictional protest and that denial of access to key documents may have breached natural justice, therefore summary judgment enforcing the Hawaiian default judgment was declined.
19 Nov 2020
The Court held that the applicants met the requirements of Articles 15 and 17 because the English bankruptcy proceedings fell within the Act's definition of a foreign proceeding, the applicants were duly appointed foreign representatives and certified supporting documents were provided and presumed authentic under Article 16; the proceedings were not manifestly contrary to New Zealand public policy under Article 6; accordingly both bankruptcies were recognised as foreign main proceedings and relief under Article 21 and provisional relief under Article 19 were granted, with orders made as per…
17 Jun 2019
The Court held the arbitrator merely answered the parties' submitted question by construing clause 1.7 and did not improperly grant a permanent injunction; an arbitrator has power to award equitable relief under s12 of the Arbitration Act; the award was not in conflict with public policy; however the legal question whether 'premises' includes business interests was sufficiently arguable and of wider significance to grant leave to appeal on that question.
28 Nov 2017
The Court refused to refuse recognition: the public policy ground was not made out on these facts. In a private law monetary dispute the surrogacy principle binds the party for counsel's defaults; there was no irretrievable or incompensable loss and the appropriate remedy lies against the respondent's legal advisers. Given the narrow public policy threshold and the need to protect finality of arbitration, the award is enforceable and is to be entered as a judgment.
21 Apr 2015
The court held that a foreign arbitral award may be relied on to support a statutory demand without prior entry as a judgment because recognition (establishing binding obligations and creditor status) is distinct from enforcement; the narrow public policy grounds under the Arbitration Act did not apply to refuse recognition of the Refined Sugar Association awards; Natural Sugars did not waive its right to arbitrate by prior statutory demands; accordingly there was no substantial dispute under s 290(4)(a) and the application to set aside the statutory demand was dismissed.
6 Jul 2009
The Dallas County judgment is enforceable in New Zealand because the Texas courts had jurisdiction, the judgment is for a definite sum and is final, the defendant's part‑payments within the limitation period meant the claim was not statute‑barred, and enforcing the judgment does not offend New Zealand public policy; accordingly the defendant has no defence and summary judgment is entered for the plaintiff.
24 Sept 2008
The Court adjourned the application to enforce the Texas judgment because the defendant's Texas appeal raises a substantive issue (constitutionality of a tolling statute) with sufficient merit, adjournment avoids duplicate hearings and expense, there was no evidence justifying security, and it is appropriate to review progress by late February 2009.
16 May 2008
The Court held s 6(1)(c) requires notice of the proceedings generally rather than notice of the specific interlocutory hearing; Mr Lane had actual and sufficient notice and elected not to take procedural steps, so registration could not be set aside under s 6(1)(c) or s 6(1)(e); the public policy exception did not apply because there was no breach of fundamental justice; s 7 discretion was declined because the pending appeal and previous unsuccessful applications did not justify setting aside or adjourning registration.
31 Oct 2006
The Court held the New York money judgment was final and enforceable in New Zealand by reason of comity; Lopez Torres does not render past New York Supreme Court decisions void or incapable of recognition; the judgment crystallised a debt for a definite sum (not an ongoing maintenance order) and therefore fell within the High Court's jurisdiction under s16 Judicature Act 1908; no arguable defence on public policy, natural justice or admissibility grounds existed, so summary judgment was granted for the amounts ordered.
11 Mar 2004
The rule against penalty clauses is an equitable remedy against oppression and does not amount to the "public policy of New Zealand" within Article 34(2)(b)(ii); accordingly the High Court had no basis under Article 34 to set aside the award on that ground and must respect the arbitrator's finding that the clauses were not penal; appeal dismissed.