New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Stay to arbitration

Legal area

Court

7 Nov 2023

CFGC FOREST MANAGERS (NZ) v THE SHIP “ACHILLES BULKER” [2023] NZHC 3130

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3130
Court

High Court

The Court held it did not have jurisdiction under art 17(d) to grant the inspection rights sought (which would effectively confer a right to inspect items) but had jurisdiction to order items remain in New Zealand; however, absent evidence that SEA was likely to destroy or conceal evidence and given SEA's consent to earlier preservation orders, the balance of convenience did not favour further Court intrusion and the additional interim measures were refused.
28 Feb 2023

SIMUNAC v LU [2023] NZHC 335

Citation

[2023] NZHC 335
Court

High Court

The stay application was dismissed as withdrawn and no costs order was made; although r 7.77(8) arguably applied, the stay application faced a significant obstacle because other causes of action in the original pleading were not arbitrable and the plaintiffs elected at a late stage to amend to avoid arbitration, so interests of justice required leaving costs to lie where they fall.
23 Aug 2019

WORLDWIDE HOLIDAYS LIMITED v LIU [2019] NZHC 2091

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2091
Court

High Court

The Court rejected creating a presumption that indemnity costs follow where proceedings are commenced in breach of an arbitration agreement because that would conflict with the High Court Rules which confine indemnity awards to exceptional circumstances under r 14.6(4); the plaintiff's conduct was not sufficiently improper or unnecessary to justify indemnity costs, and refusal of the settlement proposal was not so unreasonable as to justify increased costs; accordingly the defendant was awarded costs on the ordinary 2B scale in the sum of $10,927 and indemnity costs and costs on costs were re…
26 Mar 2019

OPENYD LIMITED v LAWRENCE & ORS [2019] NZHC 583

Citation

[2019] NZHC 583
Court

High Court

The court refused to vary the costs order because the settlement offer was not a Calderbank offer and its rejection by respondents was reasonably justified given the unacceptable sequencing condition; the interlocutory judgment did not make respondents worse off than the offer such that rejection was unreasonable; s262 does not prevent referral to arbitration and did not alter costs outcome; accordingly costs follow the event and respondents are entitled to costs on a 2B basis for specified steps.
8 Sept 2017

MIRAKA LIMITED v MILK NEW ZEALAND (SHANGHAI) CO. LIMITED [2017] NZHC 2163

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2163
Court

High Court

The Court found there is an arguable dispute over contractual construction and factual matters that fall within the parties' agreed arbitration regime; 'commencing arbitration' was interpreted to require appointment of an arbitrator so the contractual 30 day fallback had not been triggered; accordingly the Court must stay the High Court proceeding and refer issues to arbitration and cannot grant summary judgment on the record before it.
5 Dec 2016

CRANIUM ADSPACE LTD v BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO (NEW ZEALAND) LTD [2016] NZHC 2922

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2922
Court

High Court

Article 8 of Schedule 1 to the Arbitration Act 1996 required a stay because the prerequisites were met and the arbitration agreement in clause 15 was operative; speculative or potential claims against third parties do not render the arbitration agreement inoperative or incapable of being performed and are insufficient to justify maintaining the proceeding in the court.
22 Jul 2016

RUSSMA LIMITED v LI AND FAST RENTAL LIMITED [2016] NZHC 1675

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1675
Court

High Court

Counsel's erroneous statement that a default notice had been served was inadvertent, promptly corrected and did not produce a miscarriage of justice; therefore the directions of 7 April 2016 were not fraudulently or improperly obtained and the rescission application must be dismissed; costs to lie where they fall and the unresolved appointment/dismissal application is to be set down for hearing.
23 Nov 2015

TEAK CONSTRUCTION LIMITED v ANDREW BRANDS LIMITED [2015] NZHC 2924

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2924
Court

High Court

Because the parties had effectively submitted disputes to arbitration the plaintiff's proceeding was struck out; the defendant, as successful party, is entitled to costs overall under High Court Rule 14.2(a), but the Court exercised its Rule 14.1 discretion to disallow specific claimed items (deleted entitlement to items 22 and 8 in the amended schedule) while allowing photocopying, the Standards NZ purchase, and the registered valuer disbursement as reasonably necessary; leave reserved for further directions.
26 May 2015

MIKE PERO REAL ESTATE LIMITED v TAURANGA REALTY LIMITED [2015] NZHC 1162

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1162
Court

High Court

The plaintiff had not submitted the substantive dispute to the High Court; its proceedings were properly characterized as seeking interim relief under clause 31.7 of the franchise agreement and art 9 of Schedule 1 of the Arbitration Act 1996, and its subsequent conduct demonstrated an intention to follow the contractually agreed dispute resolution process; therefore the defendants' application to set aside their appearance was dismissed.
23 Apr 2015

ALPINE SUN LTD v HORTIVENTURE LTD [2015] NZHC 819

Citation

[2015] NZHC 819
Court

High Court

The Court exercised its discretion to allow the respondent costs for the protest to jurisdiction application in the sum of $9,402.75 after adjustments for specific items and apportionment of hearing time, then deducted $796 for shared costs relating to the memoranda, resulting in a final award of $8,606.75 to be paid by Alpine Sun to Hortiventure.