New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Variation of injunction

Legal area

Court

24 Dec 2020

NIRVANA FARM LIMITED & ORS v MAKAKAHO LAND COMPANY LIMITED & ANOR [2020] NZHC 3536

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3536
Court

High Court

Given the urgency of the manuka flowering season and the risk that the injunction would be frustrated if Forrest 360 refused to act without a joint instruction from the defendants' solicitors, the Court exercised its power to vary the interim injunction on a without notice basis because the nomination of Forrest 360 was not essential and allowing 'a suitably experienced drone operator' would not prejudice the defendants; accordingly clause 3(c) was amended as sought.
24 Dec 2020

HARBOUR CITY SECURITY LIMITED v ALLIED SECURITY LIMITED [2020] NZHC 3535

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3535
Court

High Court

Because the evidence indicated that Allied Investments Limited, directed by Damian Black, held the keys the subject of the interim injunction and Allied Security disclaimed possession, the court concluded it was appropriate to vary the prior without‑notice injunction so it extends to Allied Investments Limited to prevent the injunction being defeated; the same exigencies that justified the original order justified the amendment without notice.
16 Sept 2011

SIEMER V STIASSNY AND MENTHA COA CA262/2011

Citation

COA CA262/2011
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal was struck out because the appellant's application and notice of appeal amounted to an attempt to re-litigate issues finally determined by the 23 December 2008 judgment, were vexatious and an abuse of process, and Cooper J's order dismissing the High Court application was therefore appropriate; the recusal application lacked merit; indemnity costs were awarded to the respondents.
21 Dec 2006

NEWMARKET SECURITIES LTD AND ORS V GUY AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2005-404-004946

Citation

openlaw-547fdb31_a27d_4bfb_b0dc_8613a76c21c7.pdf
Court

High Court

The application to vary the interim injunctions was dismissed because the balance of convenience and overall justice did not favour variation: the remaining charged shares might provide inadequate security given share price volatility, defendants had access to other trust assets to meet needs, and the defendants' delay and inconsistent conduct undermined urgency and justification for relief.
16 Aug 2006

SHEN & ORS V AN YING GROUP LTD AND ORS HC AK CIV 2006-404-2558

Citation

openlaw-6cebc543_6714_438b_a9d1_c58d5f9ca662.pdf
Court

High Court

The court held that paragraphs 1.10-1.12 of the Mareva injunction should be discharged and replaced because the sale contract pre-dated the Mareva injunctions and completion should not be impeded; protection for plaintiffs is achieved by requiring the net proceeds to be held in a solicitors' trust account on interest bearing deposit (in joint names) not less than a specified amount, and by conditioning sealing of the order on an affidavit confirming the earlier agreement to mortgage and holding of $91,689.90 pending resolution.
24 May 2006

SHEN & ORS V AN YING GROUP LTD AND ORS HC AK CIV 2006-404-2558

Citation

openlaw-e18654fe_a561_489e_b0a5_ed5c7fa0f576.pdf
Court

High Court

The court exercised its power to vary the Mareva injunction to allow limited and specified exclusions where the evidence indicated discrete business operations or non‑party interests and where permitting access to identified funds would not unduly prejudice the plaintiffs; disclosure obligations remained and compliance time was extended pending reserved judgment on the substantive variation application.

New Zealand Case Law

NIRVANA FARM LIMITED & ORS v MAKAKAHO LAND COMPANY LIMITED & ANOR [2020] NZHC 3536

HARBOUR CITY SECURITY LIMITED v ALLIED SECURITY LIMITED [2020] NZHC 3535

SIEMER V STIASSNY AND MENTHA COA CA262/2011

NEWMARKET SECURITIES LTD AND ORS V GUY AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2005-404-004946

SHEN & ORS V AN YING GROUP LTD AND ORS HC AK CIV 2006-404-2558

SHEN & ORS V AN YING GROUP LTD AND ORS HC AK CIV 2006-404-2558