New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Stay pending criminal proceedings

Legal area

Court

7 Feb 2023

FRENCH v DOLBEL [2023] NZHC 91

Citation

[2023] NZHC 91
Court

High Court

The Court held it lacked jurisdiction in these specific performance proceedings to order removal of the caveat because removal or lapse of a caveat must be pursued through the statutory mechanisms in ss 142 or 143 of the Land Transfer Act 2017 and by originating application under High Court Rules r 19.2 in the appropriate Caveat Proceedings; accordingly the Court stayed the proceedings and sustained the caveat until further order in the Caveat Proceedings.
18 Oct 2021

PANOPTIC VANTAGE (NZ) LIMITED v LISBET [2021] NZHC 2755

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2755
Court

High Court

There was an inordinate and inexcusable delay from August 2015 to 2021 which caused serious prejudice to the defendant (notably fading memory and potential loss of documentary/material ability to defend), making a fair trial impossible; reliance on hoped-for police prosecutions did not justify remaining dormant, therefore the proceeding is dismissed under r 15.2.
1 Nov 2011

SLAVICH AND ANOR V LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER HC HAM CIV 2009-419-1674

Citation

openlaw-8796925a_a7bf_4162_9e3d_9e964e8ba507.pdf
Court

High Court

Because the applicants intentionally failed to comply with a prior court order for security for costs for over a year and that failure caused and continued to cause substantial prejudice to the third respondent, the court was entitled to make an unless order striking out the applicants' causes of action unless the security ordered by Ellis J is paid by the specified date; the existence of parallel criminal proceedings and a recall application did not displace that entitlement.
9 Jul 2007

WORLD GOOD WAY INC V WASAN INTERNATIONAL CO LTD AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2007-404-000634

Citation

openlaw-3997ae85_a35a_4e11_aaff_71e3b16bbe63.pdf
Court

High Court

Although the plaintiff established a good arguable case and that defendants had assets in New Zealand, it failed to prove a real risk of dissipation; defendants provided credible evidence that refinancing repaid existing indebtedness and that they have strong family and business ties to New Zealand, so the jurisdictional threshold for a Mareva injunction was not met and the Mareva injunction and related disclosure and restraint orders were refused.

New Zealand Case Law

FRENCH v DOLBEL [2023] NZHC 91

PANOPTIC VANTAGE (NZ) LIMITED v LISBET [2021] NZHC 2755

SLAVICH AND ANOR V LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER HC HAM CIV 2009-419-1674

WORLD GOOD WAY INC V WASAN INTERNATIONAL CO LTD AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2007-404-000634