New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Registration and enforcement of foreign judgments

Legal area

Court

5 Aug 2016

MICHAEL WILSON & PARTNERS LIMITED V SINCLAIR [2016] NZCA 376

Citation

(2016) 23 PKNZ 692
Court

Court of Appeal

Section 56 provides the exclusive statutory mechanism for enforcement of final foreign judgments; High Court Rule r 17.29 and any asserted inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to expand the limited grounds for resisting execution under s 56, and therefore the interim stay ordered below was wrongly made and must be set aside; remitted to determine sufficiency of the s 56(3) memorial.
30 Jul 2014

TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION & ORS v DOTCOM [2014] NZHC 1789

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1789
Court

High Court

The Court held that it had jurisdiction under High Court Rules r 32.3 and r 32.5 to grant an ancillary disclosure order prior to a freezing order; the summary of US evidential material could be considered for the limited purpose of assessing a good arguable case; applicants had a good arguable case and showed sufficient prospect that a US judgment would be enforceable in New Zealand (the respondent had submitted to jurisdiction in Virginia); the order sought was not inconsistent with the US stay; and there was a real risk assets would be dissipated, therefore an order requiring full disclosur…
1 Dec 2009

VUTHIRATT YOS V SANGHARA HENG HC WN CIV 2009-485-2346

Citation

openlaw-3704728e_aff5_44b7_a3e1_bd72a6128e80.pdf
Court

High Court

Under the new High Court Rules Part 32 the Court has jurisdiction to grant freestanding freezing orders in support of foreign proceedings and to make such orders against third parties (the respondent banks) holding assets in New Zealand where the applicant shows a good arguable case, a real connecting link (assets in New Zealand), prospects of obtaining and enforcing judgment, and risk of dissipation; those conditions were satisfied and a freezing order against the banks was justified; ancillary orders against the defendant were unnecessary and discharged.
2 Nov 2009

NEW ZEALAND FOOD GROUP (1992) LIMITED V KARSTEL MARKETING PTE LIMITED HC CHCH CIV-2009-409-000540

Citation

openlaw-8a2477bd_8bd2_4022_9a1b_0ccd4cc754e9.pdf
Court

High Court

A cross‑claim or set‑off raised after judgment cannot constitute satisfaction of a judgment under r 11.28; satisfaction requires actual payment or other recognised methods and allowing post‑judgment cross‑claims to operate as satisfaction would undermine specific procedural rules governing set‑off and cross‑judgments. The application was also refused on discretionary grounds given factual disputes (repayability, currency of advances) and unpaid interest.

New Zealand Case Law

MICHAEL WILSON & PARTNERS LIMITED V SINCLAIR [2016] NZCA 376

TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION & ORS v DOTCOM [2014] NZHC 1789

VUTHIRATT YOS V SANGHARA HENG HC WN CIV 2009-485-2346

NEW ZEALAND FOOD GROUP (1992) LIMITED V KARSTEL MARKETING PTE LIMITED HC CHCH CIV-2009-409-000540