New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Rescission of orders

Legal area

Court

12 Oct 2022

ZHANG v MENG [2022] NZHC 2641

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2641
Court

High Court

The joinder order made by Associate Judge Andrew was set aside because it was determined on the papers without addressing the defendants' opposition or holding a hearing; the issues were not fully argued, the plaintiffs had not made out clear grounds for joinder, and therefore relief under r 7.49 was appropriate; the rescission application and extension were granted and a timetable for submissions and potential hearing was ordered.
9 Dec 2021

JOHNSON v JOHNSON [2021] NZHC 3369

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3369
Court

High Court

By consent and applying the Court's inherent jurisdiction to vary or revoke interlocutory procedural orders where justice requires, and noting the plaintiff has withdrawn supporting affidavit evidence and did not pursue the substantive application, the Court rescinds the ex parte interim orders of 14 August 2020 and restricts access to the court file under r5(2).
16 Jun 2017

HAVEN INSURANCE LTD v LOMBARD [2017] NZHC 1336

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1336
Court

High Court

Because Haven failed to disclose material communications demonstrating that Brown and ASJ denied having signed the alleged written agreement, the court concluded there was inadequate evidential foundation to establish a serious question to be tried that the third and fourth respondents were bound by the contractual confidentiality and non‑solicitation clauses; accordingly paragraphs (c) and (d) of the without‑notice orders against those respondents were rescinded.
29 Mar 2017

Z V Z [2017] NZCA 94

Citation

[2017] NZAR 660
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court allowed the appeal and rescinded the broad ex parte gagging orders because the applicant had not proved the respondent's statements were clearly untrue or that there was no reasonable possibility of a defence of justification; there was insufficient evidence of blackmail; the blanket restriction on dissemination and searching of files was beyond the narrow circumstances permitting prior restraint, although suppression of party identities was maintained.
19 Aug 2016

SINGH v AUCKLAND CO-OPERATIVE TAXI SOCIETY LTD [2016] NZHC 1940

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1940
Court

High Court

Discovery was refused for categories 1–7, 10–13 as not necessary or not relevant to the judicial review issues; limited discovery ordered for full identifying details of unfinancial requisitioners and Board/SGM/AGM agendas and minutes (categories 8 and 9) with inspection restricted to plaintiff's counsel; interim orders (b)–(f) were rescinded for breach of the communication restraint while interim order (a) (suspension of board membership without filling the seat) was maintained and the Society was ordered to preserve the plaintiff's share; indemnity costs awarded to defendants for the rescis…
14 Dec 2015

Z v Z [2015] NZHC 3183

Citation

[2015] NZHC 3183
Court

High Court

The applicant was successful in opposing the rescission application and in having the majority of the respondent's affidavits ruled inadmissible; given the nature and number of inadmissible affidavits, increased costs are justified and a practical 25% uplift on combined items is appropriate, resulting in an order that the respondent pay $11,518.95 to the applicant.
19 Nov 2012

COUNTRY LAND LIMITED V DAVID BLACKLEY HC AK CIV 2012-488-000173

Citation

openlaw-4723a245_f8b0_47ea_80c2_a9b960a9efcc.pdf
Court

High Court

The defendants were awarded scale 2B costs with a 50% uplift for all steps after service of Mr Blackley's affidavit of 18 June 2012 because the plaintiff unreasonably refused the defendants' reasonable reciprocal proposal for independent stock assessment and/or should have accepted the undertakings given, so there was no proper basis to oppose rescission and proceed to hearing.
17 Mar 2006

PALUBINSKAS, BEGOVIC AND ROBB V OCEAN VIEW OLIVES LIMITED HC AK CIV 2006-488-000061

Citation

openlaw-f1995193_39cc_4eff_83ae_cffed3d5e80f.pdf
Court

High Court

The court held the ex parte orders were not wrongly granted: despite procedural sloppiness and some inadmissible or low-weight reply material, there remained a serious question to be tried because the plaintiffs plausibly contracted to buy 4010m2 as shown by the scheme plan and the proposed change concerned conveyance/contract rather than title; the balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo pending substantive determination, so the application to set aside was dismissed subject to a fuller undertaking being filed.