New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Return of property

Legal area

Court

20 Apr 2023

MORRISON v FRANCIS [2023] NZHC 841

Citation

[2023] NZHC 841
Court

High Court

The plaintiff discontinued the proceeding and failed to demonstrate just and equitable grounds to displace the statutory presumption in r 15.23; the plaintiff's factual account was contestable, he did not establish innocence, financial hardship was insufficient, and his failure to perform an interim settlement caused additional costs, therefore costs follow the event and are awarded to the defendants on a category 2B basis plus disbursements.
10 Aug 2021

DODD v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 2059

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2059
Court

High Court

Because proceedings for sexual offending were commenced within six months of seizure, s151 permitted police to lawfully retain the seized laptop and phones as evidentially relevant; subsequent inspection did not render retention unlawful; the appeal had no prospect of success and the extension of time was refused.
18 Dec 2020

LEADERS HAWKES BAY LIMITED v PIENAAR [2020] NZHC 3460

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3460
Court

High Court

There was a serious question to be tried that the respondent retained and used the applicant's confidential information and intellectual property; the respondent's conduct weighed against her in the balance of convenience; damages would be inadequate to compensate intangible loss; accordingly justice required granting an interim injunction without notice to require return of property and prohibit its use pending further orders.
27 Sept 2019

THE COMMISSIONER, THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE v BLANCE & ORS [2019] NZHC 2457

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2457
Court

High Court

The High Court approved the settlement because it was consistent with the statutory purpose of forfeiting property representing proceeds of significant criminal activity and was in the overall interests of justice given the proportional valuation of the vehicle as part of the unlawful benefit, the low value of the registration plate, the lack of other known assets, and the public interest in resolving the matter efficiently by consent.
2 Jul 2014

KIM DOTCOM v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2014] NZHC 1505

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1505
Court

High Court

The Court directed that encryption codes provided by the plaintiffs must remain confidential to nominated New Zealand Police officers, must not be disclosed to any other party including any representative of the United States, and must not be stored or transmitted electronically; this construction best implements the onshore sorting and MACMA objectives and allows Police to inspect decrypted material in New Zealand (with possible FBI assistance in New Zealand) without delivering encrypted access to US authorities.
3 Oct 2012

WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LTD V DAVID THEUNISSEN LIMITED HC TAU CIV 2012-470-723

Citation

openlaw-82ab7b2a_917c_480b_ab97_bbd1201dba40.pdf
Court

High Court

The arrest order was discharged because the defendant acknowledged the seriousness of his conduct, had been in custody since 29 September 2012 which adequately marked his conduct, and provided specific undertakings (provide mobile number, meet Westpac representative to identify and return items, refrain from attending the property during mortgagee sale) making continued custody unnecessary.
13 Jul 2012

TGR HELICORP LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) V ROGERS HC AK CIV-2008-404-4109

Citation

openlaw-779f01da_9643_4e1b_bed3_2fb957ad4196.pdf
Court

High Court

Defendants are not entitled to be heard on substantive matters because they were validly debarred after a full hearing including representation and cross-examination; leave granted at a conference with the Official Assignee preserved plaintiffs' right to pursue costs against the bankrupt defendants; on that basis indemnity costs are awarded in the specified amounts and plaintiffs are entitled to further reasonable costs and disbursements incurred after 12 December 2011.
30 Sept 2010

POLICE V RYE HC AK CIV-2010-404-4897

Citation

openlaw-c0437772_ed89_4176_a29c_ceccffee5c9c.pdf
Court

High Court

Substituted service was properly granted because the Commissioner took all reasonable steps to notify the respondent; the Commissioner proved on the material before the Court that, except for the 2007 Harley Davidson motorcycle, the seized property was tainted by the respondent's admitted involvement in substantial cannabis cultivation and restraining and forfeiture orders should be granted; the motorcycle is to be returned because Martin Cooper proved ownership and legitimate entitlement.
22 Jun 2010

BURROWS V CONTAINER SALES & LEASING LIMITED HC CHCH CIV-2009-409-001712

Citation

openlaw-1d0d6aca_59d4_4fa3_96a8_0038420038c9.pdf
Court

High Court

There was neither a possessory nor an equitable lien in respect of the goods; exercising the broad discretion under s119(3) and balancing the Official Assignee's disclaimer, lack of alternative recovery for the creditor, the applicant's deprivation of livelihood and the respondent's conduct in retaking the container without notice, it was fair to order delivery of the disclaimed goods to the applicant subject to conditions (applicant to uplift at his cost within 28 days or property vests in respondent).