New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Recognition of foreign judgment

Legal area

Court

21 Sept 2023

HEBEI HUANENG INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CO LIMITED v DEMING SHI [2023] NZHC 2501 [20 September 2023]

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2501
Court

High Court

Application for security for costs dismissed because the plaintiff is able and likely willing to pay costs, the defendant did not provide sufficient evidence that enforcement of a New Zealand costs judgment in China would be impractical or ineffective, the merits of the defence were not shown to be so strong as to justify security at this stage, and the existing NZD200,000 trust deposit shall be made available to satisfy any costs award in the defendant's favour.
7 Dec 2022

VASILOPOULOS v BAROUTSOS [2022] NZHC 3269

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3269
Court

High Court

Threshold under r 5.45 is met (plaintiff resident overseas). On balancing factors the Court exercised discretion to require modest security because of serious doubts about plaintiff's standing, unresolved requirement under Greek law to obtain an executory title before enforcement, the plaintiff's unwillingness to fund representation and enforcement steps, and the increased complexity and costs that would follow; therefore security of NZD 5,000 ordered and proceedings stayed if not paid, with costs to defendant on a 2B basis plus disbursements.
4 May 2022

ATKINSON v SINCLAIR [2022] NZHC 919

Citation

[2022] NZHC 919
Court

High Court

The Court granted recognition because the English High Court bankruptcy proceeding fell within the Act's definition of a foreign proceeding, the applicants were foreign representatives, the Article 15 evidential requirements were satisfied (or acceptable evidence provided), the Article 17 criteria were met, and any procedural non‑compliance with High Court Rules was excused under r 1.5 as it was in the interests of justice; the respondent's informal email did not preclude the order.
8 Oct 2021

HEBEI HUANENG INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CO LTD v SHI [2021] NZHC 2687

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2687
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was dismissed because the defendant raised arguable defences that preclude a finding that there is no real question to be tried: (1) credible expert and factual material supports an arguable contention that PRC courts (and/or judicial committees) may lack the independence and impartiality required for recognition at common law or that natural justice may have been compromised, and (2) disputed issues of PRC substantive law and fact (the 'property first' principle, waiver, preservation of collateral and priority of enforcement against Detai) mean the Hebei judgment may not be…
20 May 2020

ALMARZOOQI v SALIH [2020] NZHC 1049

Citation

[2020] NZFLR 251
Court

High Court

Although the threshold of impecuniosity was satisfied, the court declined to order security for costs because the plaintiff is legally aided (s 45 makes costs awards against legally aided parties exceptional) and the application was for summary judgment where costs awards are unlikely; balancing access to justice against the defendant's interests and the low prospect of a costs award led to refusal of security at this stage.
4 Dec 2015

Gudmundsen v Carrington [2015] NZHC 3070

Citation

[2015] NZHC 3070
Court

High Court

The Court recognised the final NSW judgment as the proper foundation for the bankruptcy application, concluded the debtor had been given ample opportunity (including time to seek legal aid) to challenge that judgment but had not secured the means to do so expeditiously, and therefore adjudicated the debtor bankrupt and awarded costs to the applicant.
3 Sept 2013

GORDHAN v KERDEMELIDIS [2013] NZHC 2276

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2276
Court

High Court

The defendant is entitled to costs; the appropriate base is the 2B scale but because the defendant was legally aided the recoverable solicitor/client scale amount is limited to the lesser legal aid sum ($33,683.50), and the defendant is also entitled to recover disbursements of $24,329.61, producing a total award of $58,013.11.
6 Nov 2008

EXPORTRADE CORPORATION V IRIE BLUE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV 2007-404-7020

Citation

openlaw-a1fe8500_766a_4067_96e3_534a1d44790c.pdf
Court

High Court

Plaintiff filed a discontinuance and, applying the usual rule, must pay costs; even if merits were examined the action was doomed because the Florida court lacked jurisdiction to enter an in personam judgment that New Zealand courts should recognise, so defendants are entitled to costs on a single 2B basis including interlocutory applications.
22 Aug 2006

JORDAN V VORWERK HC NAP CIV-2003-441-723

Citation

openlaw-90bda7b0_296a_4852_8e7d_6c5824b84db2.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held the Stuttgart judgment became final and conclusive on 13 July 2001, accepted Mr Bittner's exchange rates and calculations as properly sworn and admissible, rejected the defendant's objections, and awarded the converted judgment sum of NZ$211,604.13 as at 13 July 2001. Interest was awarded on the principal plus costs (NZ$197,754.26) at 7.5% p.a. from 13 July 2001 until payment, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff on a category 2B basis plus disbursements.