New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Submission to foreign jurisdiction

Legal area

Court

22 Dec 2014

VERTOL SYSTEMS COMPANY INCORPORATED v O M HOLDINGS LIMITED [2014] NZHC 3393

Citation

[2014] NZHC 3393
Court

High Court

Clause 50 (choice of law and jurisdiction clause) did not outweigh Vertol's conduct which submitted it to the jurisdiction of Papua New Guinea and the strong connecting factors pointing to PNG; accordingly Vertol failed to establish that New Zealand is the appropriate forum and its application to set aside the protest to jurisdiction is dismissed (with limited leave to renew under conditions).
21 Oct 2014

KIM DOTCOM V TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION CA451/2014, [2014] NZCA 509 [20 October 2014]

Citation

(2014) 110 IPR 442
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the High Court had jurisdiction to make the ancillary order under r 32.3 as a prospective freezing measure; the respondents satisfied r 32.5 by showing a good arguable case and sufficient prospect of a US judgment exceeding the NZ$11.8m restrained assets and of enforceability in New Zealand because Mr Dotcom had submitted to US jurisdiction; the ancillary order was not inconsistent with the US stay; confidentiality orders were modified as set out.
21 Mar 2013

GORDHAN V KERDEMELIDIS HC CHCH CIV-2010-409-002982

Citation

openlaw-2ac58a98_e1cd_45fc_92e9_7a13b6763f4d.pdf
Court

High Court

Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendant voluntarily submitted to the Nevada State Court; the decisive steps (notice of removal with reservation, Federal Court appearance, forum non conveniens motion and the documentation filed) were properly characterized as protests against jurisdiction undertaken to contest jurisdiction and did not constitute a waiver or submission; accordingly the Nevada default judgment cannot be enforced and judgment is entered for the defendant.
6 Aug 2012

MUKESH GORDHAN V SAVVA KERDEMELIDIS ALSO KNOWN AS SAVVAS KERDEMELIDIS HC CHCH CIV-2010-409-002982

Citation

openlaw-1d955322_46c6_49c7_af9d_9f136765ebc5.pdf
Court

High Court

The interaction between the submission to jurisdiction issue and the fraud defence is minimal, discovery and documents necessary for the jurisdiction issue are already available, whereas the fraud defence requires extensive further discovery and substantially more hearing time; balancing public interest (including legal aid savings) and judicial resources against the disadvantages of split trials favours ordering a separate, limited three day trial on submission to jurisdiction under r 10.15.

New Zealand Case Law

VERTOL SYSTEMS COMPANY INCORPORATED v O M HOLDINGS LIMITED [2014] NZHC 3393

KIM DOTCOM V TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION CA451/2014, [2014] NZCA 509 [20 October 2014]

GORDHAN V KERDEMELIDIS HC CHCH CIV-2010-409-002982

MUKESH GORDHAN V SAVVA KERDEMELIDIS ALSO KNOWN AS SAVVAS KERDEMELIDIS HC CHCH CIV-2010-409-002982