New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Reciprocal enforcement

Legal area

Court

30 Mar 2023

MAO v INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED [2023] NZHC 673

Citation

[2023] NZHC 673
Court

High Court

Leave to continue was declined because the proceeding fell within the scope of an extended prevention order under s166, was an attempt to relitigate matters already struck out, lacked reasonable merit (would be amenable to strike out), and sought relief outside the Court's jurisdiction regarding enforcement in China; accordingly it was an abuse of process and the application for leave was refused.
14 Sept 2018

WEBB v WEBB [2018] NZHC 2423

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2423
Court

High Court

Leave was granted to the applicant to commence an originating application to enforce the Cook Islands judgment because a sealed memorial was produced, the statutory enforcement regime under s142 is limited such that full pleadings and pre-trial steps were unnecessary, there were no contested factual issues identified and no apparent prejudice to the respondent in proceeding by originating application.
17 Jul 2018

PACIFIC PREMIER BANK v ASIATRUST NEW ZEALAND LIMITED & ORS [2018] NZHC 1762

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1762
Court

High Court

The Court held that the California Superior Court had jurisdiction, the award was for a definite sum and final, no exceptions to enforcement applied, and there was an arguable case that funds held in New Zealand were proceeds moved to defeat satisfaction and were at real risk of dissipation; accordingly a without‑notice freezing order was justified and granted.
20 Dec 2016

EMMOTT v MICHAEL WILSON & PARTNERS LIMITED [2016] NZHC 3155

Citation

[2016] NZHC 3155
Court

High Court

The caveat was not sustained because the applicant failed to show a reasonably arguable proprietary interest (an equitable lien) in the respondent's charging order at the time of registration; mere status as an unsecured judgment creditor and registration of a foreign judgment (not yet enforceable) did not establish the requisite proprietary link or circumstances converting the debt into an equitable proprietary interest.
21 Oct 2014

KIM DOTCOM V TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION CA451/2014, [2014] NZCA 509 [20 October 2014]

Citation

(2014) 110 IPR 442
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the High Court had jurisdiction to make the ancillary order under r 32.3 as a prospective freezing measure; the respondents satisfied r 32.5 by showing a good arguable case and sufficient prospect of a US judgment exceeding the NZ$11.8m restrained assets and of enforceability in New Zealand because Mr Dotcom had submitted to US jurisdiction; the ancillary order was not inconsistent with the US stay; confidentiality orders were modified as set out.
17 Dec 2013

GRABOWSKI v JAFFARI AND JAFFARI [2013] NZHC 3417

Citation

[2013] NZHC 3417
Court

High Court

The High Court found no basis to conclude the New South Wales liability judgment was obtained by fraud; the foreign trial judge's credibility findings were supported by the evidence and conduct of the trial was not unfair, therefore the application to set aside registration was refused and registration of the costs judgment was authorized.
21 Feb 2013

XTRA HEALTH PTY LIMITED V HERBAL CARE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED HC DUN CIV-2012-412-000536

Citation

openlaw-2bfce93f_0183_4343_a567_b3b0f97dc80d.pdf
Court

High Court

The applicants satisfied the statutory and rules-based evidentiary requirements for registration by producing a certified sealed copy of the Queensland judgment, proving service, swearing that the judgment was unsatisfied and enforceable in Queensland, and providing exchange rate and interest calculations; accordingly the High Court must register the foreign judgment and may impose the usual period to apply to set aside and stay enforcement pending that period.
19 Oct 2012

FAIRMOUNT TRUSTEE SERVICES LTD V ROBINSON HC AK CIV-2012-404-5474

Citation

openlaw-54a670db_9d6a_48dd_aa60_745f319bf9ff.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court ordered registration because the affidavits established an eligible High Court (Queen's Bench) judgment, the prior set aside was due to a technical error in registering the wrong court's judgment, and the Act provides the debtor a 25 working day statutory window to challenge registration, so registration without prior notice was appropriate.
14 May 2012

LANDMARK OPERATIONS LIMITED (ACN 008 743 217) V BORST HC TIM CIV-2012-476-000155

Citation

openlaw-ae507bc3_93da_49a8_8ae2_1078e8a316c6.pdf
Court

High Court

The judgment was registrable because the County Court of Victoria is specified under the reciprocal order and the applicant satisfied the Act and High Court Rules requirements (originating application, certification, supporting affidavit, authenticated judgment and interest calculation); registration was ordered effective 27 March 2012, with enforcement stayed pending a 25 working-day set-aside period.
6 Nov 2007

ALEXANDER DARIUSH-FAR V GEOFFREY NORMAN ELLIS HC CHCH CIV 2007-409-001518

Citation

openlaw-e8a125d8_d610_4523_b531_e53ebb14415f.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court refused to grant declarations because the declarations sought would be of no utility in New Zealand and were plainly intended for use in Australian proceedings; given the discretionary nature of declaratory relief under s10 of the Declaratory Judgments Act 1908 and the inherent jurisdiction of the Court, it was inappropriate to proffer declarations solely for use in another jurisdiction, and the plaintiff's claim was dismissed with costs.