8 Mar 2023
The Court granted summary judgment enforcing the Chinese judgment because the Beijing judgment was final (appeal dismissed and no further appeal available), had been partially enforced in China, the defendant was validly served, and the defendant had no arguable defence or any response in New Zealand.
10 Nov 2022
Leave to appeal was declined because, although the issues are of public importance, there are substantial disputes of fact and conflicting expert evidence that require a full hearing rather than resolution on a summary leave application, and the prejudice and delay to the respondent from allowing the appeal outweigh the applicant's interests; accordingly the interests of justice do not support granting leave.
4 Nov 2022
The High Court had personal jurisdiction over the New Zealand company and sufficient connection to the dispute; Kea established serious questions to be tried on alleged fraud, forgery, tortious conspiracy and abuse of process and showed that further enforcement and discovery steps abroad would be oppressive and vexatious. Given urgency and risk that defendants might defeat relief if warned, without-notice limited interim relief was justified. The balance of convenience and interests of justice required narrowly framed orders to preserve the status quo pending an on-notice hearing.
30 Jun 2022
The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to establish a tenable public policy defence: the evidence did not show bribery of a serving public official or that enforcement would shock New Zealand conscience; evidence of Chinese law was irrelevant to the New Zealand public policy inquiry and leave to adduce further foreign‑law evidence was declined.
17 Mar 2021
Because the California default judgment had been set aside on appeal there was no foreign judgment for this Court to enforce; accordingly the summary judgment application was declined and the statement of claim was struck out and the proceeding dismissed under r15.1(1). Costs were reserved.
12 Nov 2020
The Court held that New Zealand should assume jurisdiction: the Higher People's Court of Hebei Province is a 'court' for enforcement purposes; Hebei Huaneng established a good arguable case and serious issue to be tried; service out of jurisdiction under r6.27(2)(m) was properly engaged; the defendant's contention that plaintiff must first exhaust remedies against Detai did not prevent enforcement here given the factual and legal position; accordingly the defendant's appearance under protest was set aside and the plaintiff may proceed to seek summary judgment subject to procedural directions.
18 Aug 2020
The Court declared that all property held by AsiaTrust Limited as trustee of the CD PRT NZ Trust is traceable to the CD Private Retirement Trust, based on New Zealand evidence and trust instruments; however the Court refused to declare that the California judgment establishes a constructive trust or an obligation to remit against AsiaTrust CI because AsiaTrust CI was not a party to the California in personam judgment and New Zealand courts cannot extend or vary a foreign judgment to bind a non-party; the correct remedy is to apply to the California court to amend its judgment.
11 Nov 2019
Summary judgment was set aside because the defendant established an arguable defence: it was reasonably arguable he was resident in New Zealand (not Korea) when proceedings commenced and that steps taken in his name in Korea were unauthorised so he did not submit to Korean jurisdiction; given the court’s duty under the Insolvency Act to be satisfied the debt exists 'in truth and reality', the bankruptcy adjudication could not proceed and the bankruptcy application was dismissed; costs for the summary judgment were awarded to the creditor and other interlocutory directions made.
4 May 2018
Where an applicant shows a good arguable case that the dispute is justiciable in a foreign court and there is sufficient prospect that the foreign court has jurisdiction and any judgment would be enforceable here, the High Court may grant a freezing order to preserve assets pending determination; on the facts the criteria in r32.5 were met and the freezing order was justified.
9 Apr 2018
The Court granted the without‑notice freezing order because the applicant demonstrated a good arguable case in the substantive relationship property proceedings, the New Zealand assets were identifiable, there was a real risk of dissipation (supported by evidence of the respondent's conduct), a sufficient nexus to New Zealand existed and the applicant provided the required undertaking as to damages; the order was made subject to minor amendments (expiry date and explicit undertaking paragraph).